Division      "SS  2.3^3 

"TO  \  ^U 
Section       *^'^«    « 


1 


Ic 


h;:p- 


THE   INTERNATIONAL   CATHOLIC   LIBRARY 

Edited  by  Rev.  J.  Wilhelm,  D.D.,  Ph.D. 

VOL.  I 


Nihil  obstat 

JOSEPH  WILHELM,  S.T.D. 

Censor  deputatus 

Imprinii  potest 

f  GULIELMUS 

Episcopus  Arindelensis 

Vicarius  Generalis 


Westmonasterii 

die  21  Julii  1906 


I 


Keqait  Paul  .Tttmrh  Jhlhici-  .£  Co  ltd. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOKS 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

By  E.  JACQUIER 

AUTHORISED   TRANSLATION   FROM    THE   FRENCH 

BY 

REV.    J.    DUGGAN 


VOLUME    I 

Preliminary  Questions 
St  Paul  and  his  Epistles 


NEW  YORK,   CINCINNATI,   CHICAGO 
BENZIGER   BROTHERS 

Printers   to   the    Holy    Apostolic   See 
1907 


CONTENTS 


Introduction  to  the  International  Catholic  Library 
Translator's  Preface         .... 
Author's  Preface  .  .  .  .  , 

Bibliography  ..... 


PAGE 

vii 

ix 

xi 

xiii 


PRELIMINARY   QUESTIONS 

IPTER 

I.  Chronology  of  the  New  Testament 
II.  Language  of  the  New  Testament 


1 

21 


ST   PAUL  AND   HIS   EPISTLES 


I. 


II.  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians 

III.  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 

IV.  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
V.  Epistle  to  the  Romans 

VI.  Epistles  of  the  Captivity 

VII.  The  Pastoral  Epistles 

VIII.  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 


29 
67 
91 
129 
165 
200 
248 
288 


INTRODUCTION 

TO 

THE   INTERNATIONAL   CATHOLIC 
LIBRARY 

Between  Faith  and  Science  there  is  no  real  oppo- 
sition, but  of  apparent  opposition  there  is  much. 
And  as  people  regulate  their  lives  on  appearances  and 
follow  the  line  of  least  resistance,  Faith  is  often 
sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  Science.  Estrangement 
from  religious  practices,  moral  unrest,  defection  from 
the  Church,  aimless  lives  follow  on  the  loss  of  Faith. 
The  evil  is  patent  to  all  observers,  it  is  ever  spreading 
under  our  eyes.  The  remedy  consists  in  making 
clear  to  all  the  real  harmony  between  Faith  and 
Science,  that  is  between  knowledge  founded  on  divine 
revelation  and  knowledge  drawn  from  purely  natural 
sources.  A  great  number  of  Catholic  scholars  of 
every  country  are  labouring  at  this  task :  the  proxi- 
mate object  of  the  International  Catholic  Library 
is  to  offer  to  English  students  and  readers  the  best 
result  of  their  labours.  A  further  object  of  the  I.  C.  L. 
is  to  facilitate,  between  workers  in  the  various  fields 
of  ecclesiastical   science,  through  the  comparison  of 

ideas  and  ideals,  a  better  understanding,  an  entente 
vii 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

cordiale  making  for  peace  and  union,  Accordingly- 
direct  attacks,  bitter  controversies  and  all  things  not 
making  for  peace  are  excluded.  On  the  other  hand, 
no  book  is  rejected  which  throws  the  light  of  science 
on  any  of  the  many  aspects  of  catholic  thought  and 
life,  past  and  present,  or  which  is  helpful  in  promoting 
the  religious  life  of  the  cultured  men  and  women  of 
our  generation. 

Cardinal  Steinhuber,  the  Archbishop  of  West- 
minster, the  Bishops  of  Southwark  and  Salford  and 
others,  have  signified  their  approval  of  this  Apostolate 
of  the  Press. 

Battle.  Feast  of  the  Assumption,  1906. 

J.    WiLHELM, 

Editor. 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE 

This  first  volume  of  the  International  Catholic 
Library  is  already  well  known  to  many  English 
students  of  Holy  Scripture,  having  been  for  some 
time  in  use  as  a  text-book  at  the  Southwark  diocesan 
Seminary.  The  translation  will  be  found  shorter 
than  the  original,  not  on  account  of  any  real  or 
substantial  omission,  but  because  the  analyses  of  the 
Epistles  have  been  reduced  to  more  suitable  pro- 
portions. 

J.  D. 


AUTHOR'S    PREFACE 

This  book  is  an  attempt  to  narrate  the  various  cir- 
cumstances that  contributed  to  the  writing  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the  view  of  show- 
ing in  what  environment  they  stand  historically  and 
dogmatically.  For  this  purpose  we  have  had  to  state 
the  events  that  gave  rise  to  them,  we  have  had  to 
study  the  philosophical  and  religious  ideas  of  the 
authors,  and  we  have  had  to  describe  the  intellectual 
and  social  condition  of  those  for  whom  these  books 
were  originally  intended.  We  have  also  had  to  deal 
with  the  question  of  authenticity,  since  with  regard 
to  most  of  these  books  it  has  for  one  reason  or  another 
been  disputed  ;  this  discussion  will,  we  hope,  be  found 
of  practical  value  in  leading  the  reader  towards  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  each  book.  We  have  also 
given  an  analysis  of  each  book,  explaining  the  leading 
ideas  and  showing  how  they  are  connected  one  with 
the  other.  We  have  not  laid  much  stress  on  matters 
that  properly  belong  to  criticism,  we  have  confined 
ourselves  rather  to  history  and  dogma. 

We  deal  with  the  books  in  chronological  order  as 
far  as  it  can  be  ascertained.  We  begin  with  the 
Epistles  of  St  Paul,  since  their  dates  are  fairly  well 


xii  AUTHOR'S   PREFACE 

known  to  us.  In  the  next  place  we  take  the  books 
according  to  their  probable  dates:  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  the  Johannine  writings. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

^.—GENERAL  WORKS 

R.  CoRNELY,  Introd.  insing.  N.  T.  libros.  Second  edition.  Paris,  1897. 
J.  Belser.     Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.     Freiburg,  1901. 

B.  Weiss,     Lehrbuch  der  Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Third  edition.    Berlin, 

1897. 
H.  HoLTZMAN.    Einl.  in  das  N.  T.    Second  edition.    Freiburg,  1886. 
Th.  Zahn.    Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Second  edition.     Leipzig,  1897. 
A.  JuLicHER.     Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Third  edition.     Tubingen,  1901. 

F.  S.  Trenkle.     Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Freiburg,  1897. 

U.    Ubaldi.     Introd.    in   S.    Scripturam,   N.    T.      Fourth    edition. 

Rome,  1891. 
J.  Bleek.     Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Fourth  edition.     Berlin,  1886. 
A.  Hilgenfeld.     Hist.-Krit.  Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Leipzig,  1875. 
S.   Davidson.     Intr.    to   the   Study  of  the  N.  T.     Third  edition. 

London,  1894. 

G.  Salmon.    Hist.  Intr.  to  Study  of  books  of  N.  T.     London,  1885. 
A.  Schafer.     Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Paderborn,  1898. 

L.  Boccuez.     Manuel  Biblique,  N.  T.     Eight  edition.     Paris,  1892. 

C.  Trochon  and  H.  Lesetre.   Intr.  a  I'etude  de  I'Ecrit.  s.   Paris,  1890. 
F.   Kaulen.     Einl.    in   die   heil.    Schrift   N.   T.      Fourth   edition. 

Freiburg,  1899- 
Aberle-Schanz.     Einl.  in  das  N.  T.     Freiburg,  1877. 
J.  Hug.     Einl.  in  Schriften  N.  T.     Stuttgart,  1847. 
F.  GoDET.     Intr.  au  Nouveau  Testament.     1893-1901. 
J.  Moffat.     The  Historical  New  Testament.     Edinburgh,  1901. 
H.  VoN  SoDEN.     Urchristliche  Literaturgeschichte.     Berlin,  1905. 

5.— WORKS   RELATING  TO  ST   PAUL 

C.  FouARD.     Les  Origines  de  I'Eglise.     Paris,  1892-1897. 

P.  Rambaud.     Epitres  de  S.  Paul.     Paris,  1888. 

Renan.     S.  Paul.     Paris,  1884. 

J.  Conybeare  and  S.  Howson.     Life  and  Ep.  of  St  Paul.     1891. 

W.  Farrar.     Life  and  Work  of  St  Paul.     1892. 


xiv  BIBLIOGKAPHY 

T.  Lewin.     Life  and  Ep.  of  St  Paul.      1875. 

L.  Bonnet.     Epitres  de  S.  Paul.     Lausanne,  1892. 

W.  Ramsay.     St  Paul,  the  Traveller,  etc.     London,  1895. 

Ch.  Baur.     Paulus.     Stuttgart,  1845. 

A.  Sabatier.     L'Apotre  Paul.     Paris,  1896. 

O.  Cone.     Paul,  the  Man,  etc.     London,  1898. 

J.  Knowling.     The  Witness  of  the  Epistles.      1892. 

Th.  Simar.     Theologie  des  heil.  Paulus.     Freiburg,  1883. 

J.  van  Steenkiste.     Comment,  in  Pauli  ep.     Bruges,  1899. 

D.  Shaw.     The  Pauline  Epistles.     Edinburgh. 

C.  Clemen.     Paulus.     Giessen,  1904. 

M.  GoGUEL.      L'Apotre  Paul  et  Jesus  Christ.     1904. 

B.  W.  Bacon.     The  Story  of  St  Paul.      1905. 


PRELIMINARY    QUESTIONS 

CHAPTER   I 

CHRONOLOGY   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT 

We  must  take  it  for  granted  at  the  outset  that  the 
reader  has  some  knowledge  of  the  religious,  intel- 
lectual, and  social  conditions  in  which  the  Books  of 
the  New  Testament  were  produced.  We  cannot  give 
more  than  an  outline  of  the  history  of  the  New 
Testament  or  of  the  times  of  Our  Lord  and  of  the 
Apostles.  Dates  are  in  most  cases  only  approxi- 
mate, since  the  documents  do  not  give  numbers  with 
the  accuracy  that  modern  history  aims  at.  Moreover 
the  Jewish  year  does  not  begin  on  the  same  day  as 
the  Roman  year  or  as  our  year,  hence  it  is  often 
necessary  to  give  two  dates  in  one  year.  The  relative 
dates  can  often  be  ascertained  between  any  two 
events,  when  the  real  date — or  the  place  in  universal 
history  to  be  ascribed  to  some  New  Testament  fact — 
cannot  be  ascertained. 


1.  DATE    OF    THE    BIRTH    OF    CHRIST 

Our  Lord  was  born  in  the  lifetime  of  King  Herod. 
Consequently  he  was  not  born  in  the  year  754  a.u.c., 

A 


2  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

which  is  the  first  year  of  our  era,  because  at  that  time 
King  Herod  had  been  some  three  years  dead. 
Dionysius  Exiguus,  a  monk  of  the  sixth  century,  is 
responsible  for  our  actual  era ;  and  he  made  a  mis- 
take in  making  it  begin  in  754  a.u.c.  For  an  ex- 
amination of  facts  that  are  known  to  us  shows  that 
the  date  of  the  Birth  of  Christ  is  three  to  six  years 
before  our  era. 

Testimony  of  St  Matthew. — According  to  this 
Evangelist  room  must  be  found  in  the  lifetime  of 
King  Herod,  not  only  for  the  birth  of  Christ,  but  also 
for  the  coming  of  the  Wise  Men  and  for  the  Flight 
into  Egypt.  Unfortunately  we  know  only  approxi- 
mately the  date  of  that  king's  death.  No  matter  how 
we  calculate — whether  from  the  beginning  of  his 
reign  de  jure,  or  de  facto,  or  from  the  accession  of 
his  sons — it  is  impossible  to  say  for  certain  whether 
he  died  in  the  third  or  in  the  fourth  year  before 
Christ.  But  the  fourth  year  is  the  more  probable 
date.  An  astronomical  fact  helps  us  in  coming  to 
this  conclusion.  There  was  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  a 
few  months  before  Herod's  death,  and  we  know  that 
he  died  a  few  days  before  the  Passover.  The  eclipses 
that  were  visible  in  Palestine  in  those  years  took  place 
on  the  23rd  March  and  the  5th  September  in  the  year 
5,  and  on  the  12th  March  in  the  year  4  ;  we  must  ex- 
clude the  first  and  the  third  because  they  would  leave 
too  much  or  too  little  time  before  the  king's  death ; 
therefore  there  remains  the  date  of  the  5th  September 
in  the  year  5  before  our  era  for  the  echpse,  and  the 
Passover  of  the  year  4  for  Herod's  death.  Conse- 
quently we  may  place  the  birth  of  Christ  in  the  year 
4,  or  rather  in  the  year  6  or  7,  so  as  to  allow  for  the 
events  that  took  place  between  His  birth  and  Herod's 

death. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  3 

Testimony  of  St  Luke. — Important  works  have 
been  published  on  the  census  of  Quirinius.  We  must 
confine  ourselves  to  a  statement  of  the  difficulty  to- 
gether with  an  indication  of  the  most  recent  and  most 
certain  solutions.  Some  points  may  be  taken  as 
settled,  others  remain  at  present  undecided. 

"  In  those  days  there  went  out  a  decree  from  Cesar 
Augustus  that  the  whole  world  should  be  enrolled 
[inscribed  on  a  register].  This  enrolling  was  first 
made  while  Quirinius  governed  Syria"  (Luke  ii.  2). 
Many  questions  arise  out  of  this  text. 

Gardthausen,  the  most  recent  writer  of  the  history 
of  Augustus,  asserts  that  the  Emperor  never  decreed 
any  enrolling  of  the  whole  Roman  Empire.  No  con- 
temporary historian  mentions  anything  of  the  kind, 
and  we  can  hardly  believe  that  no  notice  would  have 
been  taken  of  so  important  an  event.  The  only 
writers  who  speak  of  it :  Cassiodorus  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, Isidore  of  Seville  in  the  seventh,  and  Suidas  in  the 
tenth,  are  too  recent,  and  are  too  evidently  based  upon 
St  Luke.  We  are  bound  to  admit  that  contemporary 
historians  such  as  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  are  silent  on 
the  point,  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  the  time  of 
Augustus  there  were  enrolments  that  may  be  called 
local.  We  have  evidence  of  them  in  Gaul :  the 
Claudian  table,  of  which  the  original  is  preserved 
in  the  Palace  of  St  Peter  at  Lyons,  says  that  Drusus 
was  making  an  enrolment  when  he  was  called  away 
to  the  war — and  that  was  in  the  twelfth  year  before 
Christ.  Census  lists  made  in  Egypt  in  the  first  century 
after  Christ  have  been  discovered  by  Kenyon,  Viereck, 
and  Wilcken.  Other  evidence  is  forthcoming  with 
regard  to  other  provinces.  Supposing  that  Augustus 
did  not  decree  any  universal  enrolment,  the  fact  that 
in  his  time  there  were  enrolments  of  which  we  cannot 


4  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

for  want  of  documentary  evidence  tell  the  number, 
but  of  which  several  are  known  to  us,  this  fact  may 
have  induced  St  Luke  to  generalise  and  to  say  that 
the  Roman  Emperor  had  decreed  that  the  whole 
Roman  world  should  be  enrolled.  Land  registrations 
of  the  time  of  Augustus  are  known  to  us.  These  are 
sometimes  stated  to  be  the  enrolling  referred  to  by 
St  Luke.  But  we  doubt  whether  that  can  be  true, 
because  the  one  concerns  persons  and  the  other  con- 
cerns property.  The  evangelist  would  have  used  the 
word  eiririinav  and  not  the  word  a-TroypdcfyecrOai  if  he  had 
referred  to  property,  and  St  Joseph  would  have  been 
inscribed  on  the  register  of  Nazareth  where  his 
property  was  situated,  and  not  on  that  of  Bethlehem. 
Supposing  that  a  census  of  the  empire  had  been 
decreed,  it  would  not  follow  that  there  must  have 
been  one  in  Judea  which  was  not  a  province  of  the 
empire ;  it  was  a  kingdom  allied  to  the  empire,  and 
Herod  seems  to  have  been  independent  as  regards 
taxation.  Josephus  knows  of  no  census  in  Judea  until 
the  time  of  Archelaus  the  son  of  Herod ;  this  was 
held  in  the  year  7  after  Christ,  and  Josephus  speaks 
of  it  as  of  something  new  and  unprecedented  among 
the  Jews.  Strictly  speaking  it  may  be  true  that  allied 
kingdoms  were  not  bound  to  make  a  census  if  one 
were  decreed  for  the  empire,  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
Romans  did  not  always  respect  the  strict  rights  of 
their  allies ;  at  the  same  time  the  case  of  the  Clita, 
which  is  often  quoted  to  prove  that  the  Romans  did 
order  enrolments  in  independent  kingdoms,  does  not 
really  prove  anything  of  the  kind,  because  Tacitus 
(Ann.  6,  41)  merely  says  that  Archelaus  wanted  to 
make  a  census  among  the  Clitae  after  the  Roman 
method,  he  does  not  say  that  the  Romans  made  it  or 
ordered  it. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  5 

The  silence  of  Josephus  as  to  St  I^uke's  enrolling 
may  be  said  not  to  be  an  absolute  silence,  for  (Ant. 
17,  2,  4,)  he  says  :  "  The  whole  Jewish  people  bound 
itself  by  an  oath  to  be  of  goodwill  towards  Cesar." 
These  words  may  contain  an  allusion  to  some  kind 
of  a  registering  of  individuals  in  the  time  of  Herod. 
Besides  Josephus  does  not  say  quite  explicitly  that 
the  census  of  the  year  7  was  the  first,  what  he  says 
is  that :  "  Though  the  Jews  were  at  first  unwilling  to 
obey  with  regard  to  being  registered,  by  degrees  they 
withdrew  their  opposition  to  it." 

The  census  having  been  decreed  by  the  emperor, 
Joseph  and  Mary  should  have  been  registered  at 
Nazareth  where  they  dwelt,  since  according  to 
Roman  law  people  were  registered  at  their  place  of 
residence.  But  it  is  possible  that  Rome  allowed 
Herod  to  take  the  census  after  the  Jewish  method, 
and  this  would  explain  why  Joseph  took  Mary  to 
Bethlehem. 

Our  principal  difficulty  is  in  the  mention  made 
by  St  I^uke  of  Quirinius.  For  Christ  was  born 
before  the  death  of  Herod,  and  Quirinius  was  not 
governor  of  Syria  in  Herod's  lifetime.  He  was 
governor  in  the  year  6  after  Christ  for  the  second 
time.  We  learn  this  from  an  inscription  that  was 
discovered  in  1764,  which  says  that  a  personage 
whom  our  learned  men  agree  to  be  Quirinius  iterum 
Syriam  et  Phoenicen  obtinuit ;  but  we  do  not  know 
when  he  was  governor  for  the  first  time.  It  can  be 
only  from  the  year  3  to  1  before  Christ,  since  the 
governors  of  the  other  dates  are  known  to  us : 
Sentius  Saturninus  from  8  to  6  before  Christ, 
Quinctilius  Varus  from  6  to  4,  Caius  Cesar  as 
Prcepositus  Orientis  from  1  to  4  after  Christ.  In 
any  case  Quirinius  was  not  governor  of  Syria  in  the 


6  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

time  of  Herod,  because  Varus  still  held  that  position 
in  the  time  of  Archelaus  the  son  and  successor  of 
Herod  (Josephus  Antiq.  17,  9,  3  and  10,  1).  Therefore 
St  Luke's  words :  riye/jiovevovro^  Ttjg  Sup/a?  Kvprjvlov  stand 
in  need  of  interpretation,  and  more  than  one  mean- 
ing can  be  put  upon  them. 

The  translation  of  this  passage  in  the  Vulgate  is : 
jacta  est  a  prceside  Syrice  Cyrino.  Facta  est  stands 
for  eyevero  which  may  really  mean  happened  or 
took  place  instead  of  was  made.  Originally  the 
Vulgate  had — as  we  see  in  the  best  MSS.— viz.  A  E  P 
F  G  Y  M  P  N,  and  also  in  several  ancient  latin  MSS. 
— viz.  t  1  q  Y^dcsc7iptio  facta  est,  prceside ;  some 
copyist  inserted  an  a,  and  made  away  with  the 
ablative  absolute. 

It  would  be  too  long  to  enter  into  all  the  explana- 
tions that  have  been  given ;  we  will  take  only  two, 
and  these  are  the  most  recent.  They  are  given  by 
Bour  and  Ramsay  and  they  agree  in  several  respects. 
We  may  however  mention  one  ancient  explanation 
which  is  not  devoid  of  probability — viz.  that  the 
census  begun  under  the  predecessors  of  Quirinius 
was  completed  in  the  latter 's  term  of  office  and  so 
was  attributed  to  him  and  went  by  his  name. 
TertuUian  (adv.  Marc.  4,  19)  says  practically  that 
the  census  was  made  by  Sentius  Saturninus  8  to  6 
before  Christ,  which  would  agree  with  the  probable 
date  of  the  birth  of  Christ.  But  why  was  so  much 
time  required  for  it  ? 

The  Bour- Ramsay  theory  is  that  in  St  Luke 
^ye/mdov  docs  not  ncccssarily  mean  governor.  The 
same  expression  is  used  of  Pilate  ^yep-ovevovro^  HiXdrov 
T^9  'lovSaiag  and  Felix  (Acts  xxiii.  24)  is  called  r'lye^wv, 
though  both  of  them  were  simply  procurators 
eiriTpoiro^.        Therefore    Quirinius    may    have     been 


OF   THE  NEW   TESTAMENT  7 

called  ^yeixdov  without  being  a  governor  properly  so 
called. 

Two  explanations  of  this  are  offered.  First,  we 
have  seen  that  periodical  enrolments  used  to  be 
made  in  the  Roman  empire,  the  first  one  took  place 
in  Syria  under  Sentius  Saturninus  8  to  7  before 
Christ,  and  in  Judea  in  the  year  6.  At  that  time 
Quirinius  was  in  command  of  the  Roman  armies  in 
Syria,  he  was  ^jeniwv  (Tacitus  Ann.  3,  48  ;  Strabo,  12, 
6,  5).  St  Luke  may  have  given  him  this  title  and 
dated  this  event  from  him  instead  of  mentioning 
Varus  who  was  not  so  well  known.  Something 
similar  may  be  seen  in  iii.  2  and  in  Acts  iv.  6. 
Then  this  enrolling  may  have  been  the  first  of  the 
periodical  enroUings,  and  not  the  first  of  the  two 
made  by  Quirinius,  the  second  one  taking  place  in 
the  year  6  after  Christ.  And  Tertullian  would 
thus  be  right  in  saying  that  the  enrolling  was  held 
under  Saturninus,  because  the  official  documents 
would  contain  his  name.  Secondly,  there  were  in 
the  provinces  procuratores  who  were  with  the  legates 
responsible  for  the  administration  of  the  finances,  we 
find  mention  of  them  together  with  the  governors  of 
Syria :  Sentius  Saturninus  and  Varus.  Quirinius 
may  have  been  such  a  procurator,  and  may  have 
taken  part  in  the  enrolling  made  by  Herod  under  the 
direction  of  the  Roman  procurator.  In  that  case 
irpwTtj  would  mean  the  first  enrolling  made  by 
Quirinius.  We  do  not  pretend  that  these  solutions 
are  satisfactory  in  every  sense,  there  are  points  that 
remain  doubtful.  However  they  throw  some  light 
on  the  question,  and  we  can  only  hope  that  future 
discoveries  may  clear  up  what  we  now  leave  in 
doubt. 

Another  and  a  more  simple  explanation  is  offered 


8  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

by  Godet  (Intro,  au  N.  Test.).  He  translates  Luke 
ii.  2  as  follows  :— "  The  very  first  enrolling  took  place 
when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria,"  and  he 
makes  this  enroUing  not  to  be  the  same  as  the  one 
that  is  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse.  There  was 
in  fact  an  enrolling  that  the  Jews  had  every  reason 
for  remembering,  because  it  marked  the  termination 
of  their  independence  as  a  nation.  Acts  v.  37  speak 
of  it  as  the  enroUing  without  any  qualification.  As 
St  Luke  had  just  mentioned  an  enrolling  anterior  to 
the  only  one  that  had  made  any  great  impression  on 
the  imagination  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  he  fixed 
the  period  of  the  one  that  was  commonly  called  the 
first,  by  attaching  to  it  the  name  of  Quirinius.  All 
the  former  enrolments  had  been  statistical,  whereas 
this  one  aimed  at  enumerating  individuals  and  esti- 
mating properties  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the 
taxes,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  it  occasioned  a 
sedition  among  the  Jews.  So  that  the  enrolling 
mentioned  in  the  first  verse  may  have  taken  place  as 
Tertullian  says  under  Sentius  Saturninus  8  to  6 
before  Christ,  and  Quirinius,  even  according  to  St 
Luke,  would  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

According  to  Luke  iii.  23  Our  Lord  at  His 
baptism  was  about  thirty  years  of  age.  We  shall 
see  presently  that  this  again  is  only  an  approxima- 
tion, and  that  it  is  in  agreement  with  what  we  have 
settled  so  far.  We  take  it  now  that  Christ  was  born 
about  the  year  6  to  3  before  our  era. 

It  is  impossible  to  fix  the  day  of  the  month. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  in  the  third  century  did  not 
know  it.  In  the  Stromata,  1,  21  he  says  that  it  was 
fixed  from  the  19th  to  20th  April  to  the  29th  May. 
Down  to  the  fourth  century  the  Eastern  Church  kept 
the  feast  of  the  Birth  on  the  6th  January,  on  which 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  9 

day  were  also  kept  the  Epiphany  and  the  Baptism  of 
Christ  in  the  Jordan.  Traces  of  this  may  be  seen 
in  the  Divine  Office  to  this  day.  St  John  Chrysostom 
(Horn.  33,  in  Matt.)  assures  us  that  in  the  Western 
Church  the  tradition  has  always  been  that  Christ  was 
born  on  the  25th  December.  St  Augustin  (Epist. 
119)  bears  the  same  witness  to  the  primitive  tradi- 
tion. Duchesne  (Orig.  du  culte)  quotes  from  the 
philocalian  calendar  the  most  ancient  testimony  that 
we  have  for  this  date.  That  calendar  was  drawn  up 
in  Rome  in  the  year  336  and  contains  the  following : 
— ^'VIII  Kal.  ian.  natus  Christus  m  Betlecm  JudceT 


2.    DATE    OF    THE    BAPTISM    AND    OF    THE    BEGINNING 
OF   THE    PUBLIC    LIFE    OF    OUR    LORD 

St  Luke,  after  giving  an  account  of  the  Baptism, 

goes   on   to  say  :   ko}  ai'ro?  ^v  6   Itja-ovg  ap-^ofxevo^  wcrel  ercov 

rpicLKovTa.  There  are  some  who  refer  wo-e/  ctwv  TpiaKovTa 
to  ap^oij.evo<i  and  translate  :  "  Jesus  was  beginning  His 
thirtieth  year."  But  such  a  translation  is  an  impos- 
sible one,  because  ap^ojuevog  excludes  coa-ei,  you  cannot 
begin  your  thirtieth  year  about  your  thirtieth  year. 
Besides  we  must  not  overlook  the  aramaism  of  which 
there  are  other  examples  in  St  Luke — viz.  xxiii.  5,  and 
Acts  i.  22  and  x,  37.  The  meaning  is  that  Our  Lord 
was  about  thirty  years  of  age — that  is,  from  twenty- 
eight  to  thirty-two  when  He  began  His  Ministry. 

Can  we  now  give  the  real  date  of  that  event  and 
draw  from  it  what  the  date  of  the  Birth  was  ? 
Approximately  we  can.  The  evangelist  tells  us  when 
John  the  Baptist  began  to  preach,  it  was  in  the 
fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Cesar.  Now,  Augustus 
died  on  the  19th  August  in  the  year  14  ;  consequently 


10  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

this  fifteenth  year  was  the  twenty-ninth  after  Christ ; 
or  if  the  second  year  of  the  reign  be  reckoned  from  the 
1st  January,  it  would  be  the  twenty-eighth  year.  So 
that,  Christ  having  been  born  before  the  year  4,  He 
would  have  been  thirty-two  or  thirty-three  years  old 
at  the  time  of  His  Baptism. 

We  arrive  at  a  similar  result  if  we  reckon  by 
Roman  dates.  The  first  year  of  Tiberius  was  783 
A.u.c.  Christ  was  born  before  750  which  is  the  date  of 
Herod's  death.  Allowing  therefore  for  some  interval 
between  His  Baptism  and  the  beginning  of  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  He  would  still  be 
thirty-two  or  thirty-three  years  of  age.  The  ex- 
pression in  verse  23  is  elastic  enough  to  bear  this 
interpretation :  thirty-two  or  thirty-three  years  is 
about  thirty  years.  Besides  we  have  ancient  testi- 
monies in  favour  of  Our  Lord  having  lived  beyond 
forty  years.  St  Ireneus  (Adv.  Her.  2,  22,  5)  says 
that  the  presbyters  of  Asia  who  had  spoken  with  St 
John  and  the  other  apostles  told  him  that  Christ  had 
lived  beyond  forty  years.  He  draws  this  conclusion  also 
from  the  words  of  the  Jews  in  John  viii.  57 :  "  Thou 
art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abra- 
ham ? "  However  this  is  not  the  common  opinion. 
Some  hold  that  the  ^yeixovla  of  Tiberius  did  not  begin 
at  the  death  of  Augustus,  but  is  to  be  counted  from 
when  he  received  tribunitial  power  in  the  thirteenth 
year  of  Christ,  or  from  when  he  obtained  the  power  of 
administration  over  the  provinces  in  the  year  11 
according  to  Mommsen.  Fifteen  years  after  this 
epoch  would  bring  us  to  the  year  26-28,  and  Christ 
would  be  twenty-nine  to  thirty  years  of  age. 

St  John  ii.  20  says  that  Christ  was  in  Jerusalem  for 
the  feast  of  Easter  next  after  this  baptism,  and  that 
in  the  course  of  a  dispute  the  Jews  said  to  Him  :  "  Six 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  11 

and  forty  years  was  this  temple  in  building."  They 
meant  that  the  work  of  building  had  been  going  on 
for  forty-six  years ;  the  use  of  the  aorist  shows  this ; 
and  we  know  that  the  temple  was  not  finished  until 
about  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  war  (Josephus 
Ant.  20,  9,  7).  Now  the  temple  was  begun  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Herod  which  was  734  a.u.c,  and 
forty-six  years  bring  us  to  the  year  780  ;  as  Christ  was 
born  in  750,  He  would  be  about  thirty  years  old  at  the 
first  Easter  in  His  public  life.  This  is  only  approxi- 
mate however,  for  Josephus  says  elsewhere  (Ant.  15, 
11,  1)  that  the  temple  was  begun  in  the  fifteenth  year 
of  Herod's  reign ;  this  may  refer  to  preparations  for 
the  building;  only  we  cannot  tell  to  which  date  the 
Jews  alluded  in  the  text  of  St  John.  Our  Lord  may 
have  been  twenty-seven  or  twenty-eight  years  old  at 
that  time. 

From  these  calculations  we  draw  the  conclusion 
that  the  mission  of  John  the  Baptist  began  in  the 
year  26-28,  that  Christ  was  baptised  in  27-28,  and 
that  the  first  Easter  in  His  public  life  was  in  28. 
Since  He  was  then  about  thirty  years  old— 2.^.  in  the 
year  26-28 — He  must  have  been  born  in  the  year  4-3 
before  our  era.  The  texts  of  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke 
point  to  6-4,  therefore  the  difference  is  slight,  and 
whatever  difference  there  is  may  arise  from  variations 
in  the  beginnings  of  the  years. 


3.  DURATION    OF    OUR    LORD's    PUBLIC    LIFE 

Tradition  is  not  unanimous  on  this  point.  St  Ireneus 
plainly  asserts  that  Our  Lord's  public  life  lasted  more 
than  ten  years.  Origen,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Epi- 
phanius,  and  some  twenty  other  writers  say  directly 


12  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

or  indirectly  that  it  lasted  only  one  year ;  but  the 
majority  put  it  down  at  three  years.  The  gospel 
narratives  furnish  nothing  very  definite.  Let  us 
begin  with  St  John. 

In  John  ii.  13  we  read  that  the  Pasch  of  the  Jews 
was  near  at  hand,  then  verse  23  says  that  Our  Lord 
was  in  Jerusalem  for  that  Pasch.  This  first  Easter 
comes  after  the  miracle  at  Cana,  and  belongs  there- 
fore to  the  first  year  of  Our  Lord's  public  life. 

In  John  V.  1  we  read :  *'  After  that  there  was 
[the — a]  feast  of  the  Jews."  If  we  follow  the  best 
manuscripts  and  omit  the  article  before  eoprri,  this  is  a 
feast  of  Jews.  If  we  adopt  the  reading  of  the  manu- 
scripts that  contain  the  article,  this  feast  was  the 
Pasch  or  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  probably  the 
latter. 

John  vi.  4  says  :  "  The  Pasch  the  feast  of  the  Jews 
was  near  at  hand."  This  would  be  a  most  valuable 
text  if  we  could  rely  upon  ro  Trao-^^a  being  the 
genuine  reading.  The  Greek  MSS.  and  the  versions 
are  in  favour  of  it,  but  the  writers  who  believed  the 
public  life  to  have  lasted  only  one  year  are  opposed 
to  it. 

John  xi.  55  :  "  The  Pasch  of  the  Jews  was  near  at 
hand."     This  was  Our  Lord's  last  Easter. 

Three  systems  have  been  built  upon  these  texts. 

1.  The  public  life  lasted  one  year.  The  first  Pasch 
(John  ii.  13)  occurred  soon  after  the  Baptism  ;  the  next 
two  are  doubtful,  and  the  second  Pasch  (John  xi.  55) 
occurred  immediately  before  His  Death. 

2.  The  public  life  lasted  two  years  and  a  half — viz. 
half-a-year  before  the  first  Pasch  in  ii.  23,  one  year 
between  that  and  the  Pasch  in  vi.  4,  another  year 
from  the  one  in  vi.  4  to  the  one  in  xi.  55. 

3.  The  public    life  lasted  three  years  and  a   half. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  13 

if  you  take  the  feast  in  v.  1  to  be  an  Easter.  The 
most  probable  opinion  is  that  the  first  Pasch  in  ii.  23 
occurred  immediately  after  Our  Lord's  Baptism,  and 
so  that  the  public  life  lasted  three  years. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  the  synoptic  gospels 
comprise  all  the  events  of  Christ's  life  within  the 
space  of  one  year.  But  that  cannot  be  true.  Be- 
cause in  Mark  ii.  23  the  disciples  pass  through  fields 
of  corn  and  pluck  the  ears,  therefore  the  harvest  was 
not  far  off,  and  the  time  must  have  been  April-May. 
Then  in  Mark  vi.  39  at  the  multiplication  of  the 
loaves  there  is  grass  for  the  multitudes  to  sit  on,  that 
must  have  been  the  spring  of  another  year.  Next 
there  came  the  journeys  into  Phenicia,  Northern 
Galilee,  and  Perea  which  must  be  placed  in  the 
following  year.  So  that  the  public  life  must  have 
lasted  two  years  at  least. 


4.    DATE    OF   THE    CRUCIFIXION 

According  to  these  calculations.  Our  Lord's  Death 
may  be  placed  between  the  years  28-33  of  our  era, 
the  most  probable  date  being  29-30.  The  day  of 
His  Death  is  uncertain  ;  according  to  St  John  it  is  the 
14th  day  of  Nisan,  according  to  the  synoptics  it  is  the 
15th.  We  can  see  no  reason  for  preferring  the  one 
date  to  the  other.  Endless  discussions  have  been  held 
over  this  problem,  numberless  hypotheses  have  been 
suggested,  but  none  of  them  satisfy  all  our  require- 
ments ;  because  two  texts  appear  to  be  irreconcilable. 
According  to  the  synoptics  (Matt,  xxvii.  17 ;  Mark 
xiv.  12  ;  and  Luke  xxii.  7)  Our  Lord  ate  the  Passover 
of  the  Jews  on  the  evening  of  the  14th  Nisan,  and 
died  on  the  15th.     According  to  St  John  xviii.  28, 


14  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

on  the  morning  of  the  day  on  which  He  died,  the  Jews 
refused  to  enter  the  pretorium  in  order  that  they  might 
not  be  defiled  but  might  eat  the  Passover.  Therefore 
that  day  was  the  14th  Nisan,  and  Christ  died  on  that 
date.  There  is,  we  may  be  certain,  a  solution  of  this 
antinomy,  because  Tatian  and  other  early  harmonists 
perceived  no  difficulty  here. 

Taking  it  for  granted  that  the  date  of  Our  Lord's 
death  was  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan,  let  us  see  where 
according  to  the  Jewish  calendar  that  date  would  fall. 
Between  the  years  28-33  the  Friday  14th  Nisan  is 
found  in  the  year  33,  and  Friday  the  15th  is  found  in 
the  year  30.  According  to  Preuschen  (Zeit.  neu. 
Wiss.  p.  16)  Christ  died  on  the  7th  April  of  the  year 
30,  that  day  being  the  14th  Nisan  in  the  Jewish 
calendar. 


5.    CHRONOLOGY   OF   THE   LIFE   OF   ST   PAUL 

We  must  begin  by  settling  relative  dates,  and  then 
we  can  establish  a  connection  between  them  and  some 
event  of  which  the  absolute  date  is  known  to  us. 

Relative  dates  and  events  in  St  Paul's  life. — The 
Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.)  is  the  central  point 
from  which  we  can  trace  both  backward  and  forward 
the  dates  of  all  the  events  in  the  life  of  the  Apostle. 
We  admit  with  the  majority  of  historians  that  this 
Council  is  identical  with  the  meeting  mentioned  by 
St  Paul  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10. 

The  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  held  at  Pentecost  in 
May.  St  Paul  began  his  second  missionary  journey  the 
following  autumn  (Acts  xv.  40) ;  from  Antioch  he 
travelled  through  Syria  and  Cilicia  visiting  the 
churches   founded  in  his  first  missionary  journey  at 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  15 

Derbe,  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch  in  Pisidia.  It 
is  estimated  that  six  months  must  be  allowed  for  this 
journey.  After  that  it  is  uncertain  whether  he  went 
to  Galatia  properly  so  called,  or  whether  he  went 
directly  through  Mysia  to  Troas  ;  but  the  latter  is  the 
more  probable.  One  month  is  allowed  for  this. 
Thence  to  Corinth  through  Philippi,  Berea,  Thessa- 
lonica,  and  Athens  in  about  six  months ;  a  stay  of 
eighteen  months  at  Corinth,  and  then  he  returned  to 
Antioch  having  been  absent  about  two  years  and  nine 
months.  The  third  missionary  journey  was  from 
Antioch  to  Ephesus,  and  about  three  months  must  be 
allowed  for  it ;  then  St  Paul  made  a  stay  of  three 
years  in  Ephesus.  Thence  to  Corinth  through 
Macedonia,  a  stay  of  three  months  at  Corinth,  return 
to  Philippi,  about  one  year,  and  journey  to  Jerusalem 
requiring  a  month  and  a  half.  Thus  the  third  mis- 
sionary journey  lasted  about  four  years  and  a  half. 
The  captivity  of  St  Paul  in  Jerusalem  and  Cesarea 
lasted  for  two  years  before  Felix  was  replaced  by 
Porcius  Festus ;  consequently  all  these  periods  to- 
gether amount  to  about  nine  years  and  a  half  or  ten 
years.  It  is  evident  that  these  dates  are  to  some 
extent  conjectural. 

Looking  backward  we  find  that  the  dates  are  more 
definitely,  though  still  not  quite  definitely  fixed. 
According  to  Gal.  i.  18  three  years  after  his  conver- 
sion and  after  his  return  from  Damascus  St  Paul  went 
up  to  Jerusalem ;  according  to  Gal.  ii.  1  fourteen 
years  later  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  again.  Are  these 
years  to  be  counted  from  the  date  of  his  conversion, 
or  from  the  date  of  his  first  journey  ?  Most  probably, 
judging  by  the  context,  they  are  to  be  counted  from 
the  journey.  Therefore  from  his  conversion  to  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem  there  were  at  least  seventeen 


16  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

years,  and  from  his  conversion  to  the  recall  of  Felix 
there  were  twenty-seven  years  and  a  half. 

Absolute  dates  in  St  PauTs  life. — There  are  certain 
events  that  we  may  make  use  of  as  fixed  points,  be- 
cause the  dates  of  them  are  fairly  well  known  to  us. 
There  is  the  domination  of  Aretas  at  Damascus,  prob- 
ably about  34-37  (2  Cor.  xi.  33),  the  famine  in 
Jerusalem,  not  before  the  year  46  (Acts  xi.  28),  the 
expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Rome,  probably  in  49-50 
(Acts  xviii.  2),  the  marriage  of  Drusilla  and  Felix, 
not  before  54  (Acts  xxiv.  24).  The  best  known  of  all 
the  dates,  and  the  one  that  can  be  best  ascertained,  is 
that  of  the  recall  of  Felix  the  procurator  of  Judea. 
Nevertheless  Schiirer  (Gesch.  des  jiid.  p.  578)  holds 
that  we  cannot  be  quite  certain  with  regard  to  it. 
There  are  two  theories :  according  to  the  one  Felix 
was  recalled  in  55,  according  to  the  other  he  may  have 
been  recalled  as  early  as  58-59  or  as  late  as  60-61. 
The  first  theory  appears  to  be  supported  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  ancient  writers  such  as  :  Eusebius  in  his 
Chronicle,  Armenian  version,  version  of  St  Jerome, 
and  Syriac  Epitome,  the  Chronicon  Paschale, 
Euthalius.  The  principal  proofs  are  these  :  according 
to  Josephus  (Ant.  20,  8,  9)  Felix  after  being  recalled 
from  Palestine  was  prosecuted  before  Cesar  by  the 
Jews  of  Cesarea,  and  would  have  been  condemned 
but  for  the  intervention  of  his  brother  Pallas  who  was 
at  that  time  all-powerful  with  Nero.  Now  according 
to  Tacitus  (Ann.  13,  14,  15),  Pallas  fell  from  power 
when  Britannicus  was  nearly  fourteen  years  old  ;  the 
latter  was  born  in  41,  consequently  Pallas'  disgrace 
came  in  55.  The  lawsuit  against  Felix — and  of  course 
his  recall  froin  Palestine — took  place  earlier,  therefore 
probably  in  54,  and  that  is  the  first  year  of  Nero's 
reign.     Moreover   Eusebius   in   his  Chronicle  places 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  17 

the  arrival  in  Palestine  of  Festus,  the  successor  of 
Felix,  in  the  second  year  of  Nero — that  is  from 
October  55  to  October  56 — which  brings  us  back  to 
about  the  same  date  for  the  recall  of  Felix  in  54-56 
and  for  the  captivity  of  St  Paul  in  52-53.  The  same 
date  may  be  seen  in  Euthalius  (Prolog,  in  Ep.  Pauli) 
and  in  St  Jerome  (De  Vir.  111.  7) :  he  says  that  the 
Acts  go  "  usque  ad  biennium  Romas  commorantis 
Pauli  id  est  usque  ad  quartum  Neronis  annum " ; 
consequently  the  second  year  of  St  Paul's  stay  in 
Rome  would  be  57-58,  the  recall  of  Felix  would  be  in 
55-54,  and  the  imprisonment  of  St  Paul  in  Jerusalem 
would  be  in  52. 

This  date  is  adopted  by  O.  Holtzman  and 
Harmack.  Yet  we  think  it  inadmissible.  For  how 
can  St  Paul  arrested  in  52  have  then  said  to  Felix, 
who  was  appointed  in  52  :  "  Knowing  that  for  many 
years  past  e/c  ttoWwp  erwv  thou  art  a  judge  of  this 
nation  "  (Acts  xxiv.  10).  And  at  the  time  when  St 
Paul  was  arrested  (Acts  xxi.  38),  that  is  in  52-53  ac- 
cording to  this  chronology,  the  chiliarch  said  to  him : 
"  Thou  art  not  then  that  Egyptian  who  rebelled 
recently  and  led  out  four  thousand  robbers  into  the 
desert  ? "  This  rebellion  took  place  according  to 
Josephus  (Ant.  20,  8)  after  the  accession  of  Nero, 
and  therefore  after  October  54.  How  could  the 
chiliarch  speak  of  it  in  52  or  53  ?  Besides  there  is 
difficulty  in  finding  room  for  all  the  events  of  St  Paul's 
Ufe  in  the  years  between  30,  the  probable  date  of 
Christ's  death,  and  the  year  52. 

Many  chronologists  have  on  account  of  these  im- 
possibilities put  off  the  date  of  Felix's  recall  to  57-58 
or  even  to  60-61.  Schiirer  arrives  at  the  latter  date 
by  the  following  reasoning : — the  second  successor  of 
Felix,  whose  name  was  Albinus,  went  to  Palestine  in 


18  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

the  summer  of  62  ;  if  Festus,  the  immediate  successor 
of  Fehx,  was  procurator  for  no  more  than  one  year, 
FeUx  cannot  have  been  recalled  later  than  60  or  61, 
nor  can  his  recall  be  placed  much  earlier  since  in  58 
St  Paul  said  that  he  had  been  for  many  years  a  judge 
of  that  nation,  and  he  had  been  judge  since  52. 
Therefore  the  recall  of  Felix  must  be  fixed  approxi- 
mately about  58-60.  The  chronological  table  will 
show  which  of  these  two  theories  fits  in  best  with 
contemporary  events. 


6.    DATE    OF    THE    DEATH    OF    SS.    PETER   AND    PAUL 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  two  apostles  Peter  and 
Paul  died,  if  not  the  same  day — and  we  have  no  text 
to  prove  it  except  St  Jerome's  (De  Vir.  111.  1) — at 
least  about  the  same  time.  St  Augustin  (Serm.  295) 
says  that  they  died  on  the  same  day  but  not  in  the 
same  year.  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth  about  170 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  says  distinctly: 
"  Peter  and  Paul  suffered  martyrdom  together  top 
avTov  Kaipov."  The  year  is  in  dispute.  Clement  of 
Rome  writing  to  the  Corinthians  (v.  6)  speaks  of  the 
testimony  rendered  by  Peter  and  Paul  as  well  as  by 
several  women  who  underwent  the  punishments  of 
the  Danaids  and  of  Dirce:  this  refers  probably  to 
Nero's  persecution.  And  according  to  Tacitus  that 
took  place  in  64.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  posi- 
tive testimony  for  a  different  date.  Eusebius  in  his 
Chronicle  (ed.  of  St  Jerome,  2)  says  that  the  martyr- 
dom of  the  apostles  took  place  in  the  fourteenth  year 
of  Nero,  that  is  in  68  after  Christ.  The  Armenian 
version  of  the  Chronicle  says  that  Peter  and  Paul 
suffered  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Nero.     There  is  also 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  19 

St  Jerome's  very  distinct  testimony:  he  says  (Vir. 
111.  1.)  that  Peter  "Romam  pergit,  ibique  viginti 
quinque  annis  cathedram  sacerdotalem  tenuit  usque 
ad  ultimum  Neronis  annum  id  est  quartum  decimum." 
St  Jerome  relies  upon  Eusebius,  who  reproduces  the 
papal  chronology  of  Julius  Africanus,  which  was  prob- 
ably founded  on  the  lists  of  Hegesippus.  Nero  died 
in  68,  his  fourteenth  or  last  year  began  in  October  67. 
Peter  and  Paul  may  therefore  have  suffered  in  67  or 
68.     (Duchesne's  Orig.  chret.  p.  72.) 


[Table 


20     BOOKS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 


o 

U-5    00 

^ 

IH 

w     r« 

Tf  00 

M 

Tt         t- 

uq€z 

ro 

(O     CO 

't 

6 

iLO    \r> 

»o    >o 

VO 

^     vi 
VO 

o> 

VO     CO 

VO 

»~~ 

Qs    a\ 

N      VO 

ON 

to    to 

lauinx 

N 

^  ^ 

'^ 

''J- 

^    ^ 

lO    to 

to 

4t-   -^ 

o 

to 

VO      VO 

H 

O 

5 

o 

O      fO 

■* 

IT) 

r^    t^ 

o     ^ 

t-- 

'^   '^ 

JJDtJUiBJI 

T' 

ro     ro 

•-t 

't 

VO     VO 

^  ^ 

VO 

VO     VO 

ON 

T^   ^ 

to 

to 

8  < 
(J 

M 

XtJsiuBy 

o 

Tt     t- 

VO 

r^ 

o    o 

to    t- 

O 

.     t^ 

< 

CO 

ro    CO 

IT) 

rt- 

o>    "^ 

lo    tn 

VO 

:   v6 

tf) 

Ti- 

•^ 

»o 

w 

H 

^oojiqSiq 

o 

^     «^ 

to 

00 

l-l      l-l 

Tf     CO 

l-l 

T^   t- 

< 
Q 

to 

ro     fO 

'^ 

'^ 

to     VO 

u-1    li-) 

VO 

VO     VO 

ID   CO 

N 

u-> 

lO 

On     On 

tJ         t^ 

o 

J3spa 

fO     ro 

Tf 

4j- 

'^ 

■<i-    '^ 

to    to 

MD 

:   VO 

Ajauio^ 

ON 

Tf       1-- 

M 

Tj- 

VO 

M          l-l 

to     On 

t» 

r^    r- 

N 

to    to 

^ 

^ 

"^ 

«o     to 

to     to 

VO 

VO     VO 

>• 

•    • 

• 

a 

3 

•        • 

o 

a 

<u 

>-i 
<u 

H 

OJ 

"rt 

3 

^      H-> 

ffi 

Ifi 

3 

3 

Ph 

rt  .s 

• 

• 

. 

J3 
0) 

• 

1 — . 
o 

w5 
<*- 

p-t  ^ 

cJ5    rt    ■ 

a 

o 

< 

H 

H 

o 

u 

o 
o 

ion  of  St  Paul 
it  of  St  Paul  to 

''• 

in 

a 

3 

a5 
o 

'tn 
> 

O 

>-. 

ID 

c 

;-• 

3 

•2, 

en 

of  Jerusalem 
Miss,  journey  o 

liss.  journey  of 
nment  of  St  P 

PL, 

OO 
<i-i 

o 

f  St  Peter  . 
f  St  Paul    . 

en 

H 

D 
l-l 

en      to 

>    4-. 

o 

c 
o 

«5 

1  'H 

3      O 

■^  o  a 

13 

o    o 

> 

o    .^ 

<u 

(L) 

>-i 

^ 

<U       OJ 

W 

u 

U  Pm 

Q 

O) 

E 

CJ   c^ 

< 

Q  Q 

tn 

t^ 

r^     M 

■-t 

■-i- 

CO 

oo 

■*    CO 

rf    CO 

W 
H 
< 

ro 

to     '^ 

lO 

■* 

^ 

T^ 

to   VO 

VO     VO 

^ 

■*     r- 

HH 

sJ      '^ 

Q 

M 

to    to 

Tl- 

.♦^     to 

<2 

> 

tn 

• 

• 

<u 

_X 

o 

H 

3 
o 
t/1 

hH 

a 

o 

13 

C/3 

a 

ex 

a 

Q     • 

'iZ 

o 

1^ 

rt 

. 

< 

bC 

oo 

CI 

^3 

o 

CO 

3 

cj     ^ 

3 

< 

M 

c 

C=5 
Pi 

O 

(/I     '^ 

■-5 

3 

U 

'a 
o 

t/J 

o 

< 

1 — . 
ti-i 
o 

Q   2 

O 

•^    o 

1^ 

H 

ui 

ti-    ^*-, 

<*- 

<-i-< 

o 

<U      v_ 

>^    <*- 

o 

o    o 

o 

o 

dT 

bo    O 

<U      O 

c 

c    c 

c 

.a 

c 

CX 

■n    a 

f^    -G 

> 

,bf) 

Cfl    tj-j 

bjD 

rt 

'a 

^  .SP 

"S 

"S  'S 

'5 

0) 

cj 

X 

«2    (u 

b       (D 

fi^ 

P^   Pi 

P^ 

Q 

p^ 

W 

Ph    Q 

CHAPTER   II 

LANGUAGE   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

1.    ORIGIN    AND    NATURE    OF    THE    LANGUAGE    OF   THE 
NEW    TESTAMENT 

In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  there 
were  interminable  discussions  on  this  subject.  The 
purists  on  the  one  hand  maintained  that  the  Language 
of  the  New  Testament  had  all  the  characteristics  of 
classic  Greek.  On  the  other  hand,  others  maintained 
that  the  numberless  hebraisms  to  be  found  in  it  gave 
it  a  character  of  its  own.  At  the  present  time  we 
look  at  the  question  from  a  different  point  of  view 
altogether  :  some  look  upon  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  as  a  special  language  with  its  own  rules 
and  laws,  others  consider  it  to  be  a  special  form  of 
the  Koivr)  SiaXeKTo?  or  coMJUon  language  which  grew 
up  in  the  Greek  world  after  the  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great  by  a  fusion  of  dialects  in  which 
fusion  the  Attic  dialect  predominated.  The  former 
of  these  views  is  supported  by  the  following  argu- 
ments : — certain  words  are  employed  in  the  New 
Testament  earlier  than  they  are  to  be  found  any- 
where else ;  other  words  have  in  it  a  meaning  that 
they  never  have  in  classic  Greek,  either  because  the 
meaning  originates  in  the  Hebrew,  or  because  it 
originates  from  the  first  Christian  writers ;  thirdly, 
many  forms  of  expression  are  found  in  it  that  are 
unknown  in  Greek,  the  whole  method  of  phrasing  is 

21 


22  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

so  simple,  so  without  subordinate   sentences,  as   to 
remind  one  of  the  Hebrew  rather  than  the  Greek. 

Those  who  hold  the  second  view  remark  that  it  is 
a  mistake  to  speak  of  certain  words  as  aVaf  Xeyofieva 
hapaxlegomena  as  if  the  New  Testament  writers  had 
coined  them  ;  it  would  be  more  correct  to  call  them 
aira^  euprj/meva  bccausc  they  first  occur  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  in  reality  they  are  words  belonging 
to  ordinary  speech,  are  to  be  found  in  ordinary  con- 
versation, and  examples  of  them  may  be  seen  in 
inscriptions  and  in  papyri  that  have  recently  been 
discovered.  Deisman  (Bibelstudien,  80-168)  quotes 
some  of  them,  and  now  that  the  attention  of  learned 
men  has  been  drawn  to  the  subject,  we  may  expect 
these  quotations  in  greater  numbers.  Few  docu- 
ments are  accessible  to  us  referring  to  the  language 
that  was  in  common  use  at  the  time  of  Christ,  that  is 
why  so  many  words  of  that  form  of  speech — about 
350 — occur  in  the  New  Testament  and  nowhere  else. 
It  seems  quite  incredible  that  all  the  New  Testament 
writers  were  coiners  of  words.  It  has  often  been 
noticed  that  St  Paul  coined  words ;  it  has  not  been 
noticed  that  the  other  New  Testament  writers  coin 
relatively  quite  as  many ;  for  155  new  words  that  we 
find  in  St  Paul,  we  find  90  in  St  Luke,  38  in  St 
Matthew,  31  in  St  Mark,  and  21  in  St  Peter.  The 
simplest  explanation  seems  to  be  that  all  these  writers 
made  use  of  the  words  that  were  in  common  use  in 
their  times. 

Much  the  same  should  be  said  of  the  hebraisms  of 
the  New  Testament :  many  of  them  must  be  referred 
to  classical  Greek,  many  to  the  common  language, 
and  some  to  the  conversational  language.  As  for 
the  words  that  are  used  in  a  Christian  sense,  many  of 
them   are  found  used   in   that   sense   in  the  papyri 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  23 

of  the  time  as  Deisman  shows  (Neue  Bibelstudien, 
pp.  20-51),  And  finally  the  simple  and  direct  way  of 
writing  without  subordinate  sentences  or  parentheses 
is  the  conversational  style  and  is  found  in  the  written 
documents  of  the  Koivri  or  common  language.  Deis- 
man  has  defended  this  view  with  erudition,  Dr 
Thumb  and  Dr  Blass  were  at  one  time  opposed  to 
it,  but  seem  now  to  have  come  round  to  it.  And 
that  is  how  the  controversy  stands  at  the  present 
time. 

It  is  important  to  make  a  distinction  between  two 
kinds  of  writings  in  the  New  Testament :  some  are 
translations  from  the  Aramaic,  such  as  certain  portions 
of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  certain  portions  of  the 
first  chapters  of  the  Acts ;  others  were  both  thought 
out  and  written  in  Greek,  such  as  the  epistles  of  St 
Paul  and  the  narratives  of  the  Acts.  And  there  is 
a  third  category  in  which  we  must  place  the  books 
that  were  written  in  Greek  but  thought  out  in 
Aramaic,  such  as  the  Johannine  writings.  This  being 
the  case,  it  is  evident  that  we  may  expect  to  find 
many  hebraisms  and  aramaisms  in  the  first  class  of 
writings,  fewer  in  the  third  class,  and  none  or  next  to 
none  in  the  second. 


2.    CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE   LANGUAGE   OF   THE   NEW 

TESTAMENT 

Let  US  place  ourselves  at  the  standpoint  of  classical 
Greek,  and  see  how  the  New  Testament  language 
differs  from  it. 

New  words. — Leaving  out  proper  names  and  their 
derivatives,  there  are  4829  separate  words  in  the  New 
Testament,  3933  of  these  belong  to  classical  Greek, 


24  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

350  belong  to  post-classical  Greek,  most  of  them  occur 
for  the  first  time  in  the  New  Testament,  and  are 
found  later  on  in  Plutarch  and  in  all  the  Christian 
writers,  580  occur  both  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  36  are  borrowed  from  the  Hebrew, 
24  from  the  Latin,  and  6  from  other  languages.  So 
that  there  is  a  total  of  996  words — or  about  one  fifth 
— that  do  not  belong  to  classical  Greek.  We  cannot 
tell  for  certain  whether  these  words  were  in  existence 
in  the  classical  period  and  belonged  to  the  language 
of  ordinary  conversation,  but  it  seems  very  likely  that 
they  did. 

Four  things  are  worthy  of  remark  :  first  that  certain 

words,  such  as  acppl^co,  ^pooa-i/nog,  evapea-Tea),  KoXvfx^dw,  are 

common  to  the  New  Testament  and  to  the  comic  poets. 
Kennedy  (Sources  of  New  Testament  Greek,  pp.  72-78) 
gives  204  ;  secondly  the  New  Testament  writers 
make  use  of  more  than   a   hundred  poetical  words, 

such   as,  dXucriTeXijg,    d<pavT09,   avyal^o),   oSvvr],    (pL/jLOio  ;   they 

are  fond  of  diminutives,  such  as  yvvai-)(apiov,  x^opda-iov, 

ovdpiov,  and  of  compound  words,  such  as  dyeveaXoyrjTO^, 

€-)(jwKTr]pl'C(D,  vTre peKTrepia-cro)^ ;  finally  about  350  words 
occur  for  the  first  time,  such  as  aia")(^poKepS^?,  dviXeo?, 

avTifxicrOia,  dpaevOKOLTri^,  dcpeSpoov,  ^oXtTft),  Sieria,  SmKTij9y 
Swareo),  eTriovcrios,  eWoydco,  ijuLaTi^a),  KaTUKpicri^^  /caraXaXo?, 
KaToXiOdTco. 

New  meanings. — Certain  words  have  in  the  New 
Testament  a  meaning  that  they  have  not  in  classical 
Greek.  This  change  is  sometimes  due  to  the  natural 
evolution  of  the  language,  sometimes  to  contact  with 
Hebrew  or  Aramaic ;  as  examples  of  the  former 
we  may  mention  dvTlkrjy^i^  help,  kWeu^ig  petition, 
(TTeWofiai  to  fear;  as  examples  of  the  latter  ayyeXo? 
angel,  aiwv  eternity,  world,  Swa/xeig  miracles,  Kplan^ 
justice,  6(j)€i\rj/j.a  sin.     Other  words  have  received  new 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  25 

meanings  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  or  Christian 

ideas,  such  as  o-«/>^  «■«'  aifxa,  cnfKuy^va,  Tropeveadat, 
TrepnraTeiVy  ev  yepvrjroig  yvvaiKwv,  aluiv,  aimaTacri?^  yeueadai 
OavuTov,  evayyeXiov,  ^wr/,   oi  K\t]TOi,   wictti?,  to  Trvev/na,  kutu 

crapKa,  SUatog,  crcortjpia.  And  certain  expressions  or 
metaphors   are    quite   new,  such    as    irerpa  a-KavSaXou^ 

diroOaveip  ev  afiapria,  T^i/  too  Oeui,  ev  ■^picrTU)  Ijycroi', 
irepnraTeiu  ev  KaivoTtjTi  Tft)^?,  tou  Qvpeov  Trjq  TricrTewg. 

Grammar. — We  notice  here  only  the  more  im- 
portant changes.  For  the  others  we  refer  the  reader 
to  grammars  of  New  Testament  Greek  ;  everything 
that  regards  the  form  is  too  technical  for  us,  we 
confine  ourselves  to  what  regards  syntax. 

The  article  is  employed  much  in  the  same  way  as 
in  classical  Greek ;  personal  pronouns  are  more 
common  in  the  New  Testament  and  make  the 
sentences  more  emphatic  (Matt.  iii.  4  and  xiii.  4) ; 
the  possessive  adjective  is  replaced  by  the  genitive 
of  personal  pronouns,  or  if  it  is  used  the  article  is 
used  with  it  and  the  sense  is  emphatic  (Mark  viii.  38) 
except  when  it  is  the  predicate  (Mark  x.  40).  Some- 
times the  pronoun  is  repeated  needlessly  (Matt.  viii. 
23  ;  Mark  xiii.  19) ;  avros  has  a  reflective  sense  (Matt, 
iii.  16  and  v.  29)  ;  ov  tto?  not  every 07ie  is  a  hebraism 
for  ov^ei^  no  one.  The  use  of  the  cases  is  fairly 
regular,  nevertheless  the  genitive  sometimes  takes 
the  place  of  an  adjective  o-wyua  t^9  a/uaprlag  (Romans 
vi.  6)  viol  ^/uLepag  (1  Thess.  V.  5).  Degrees  of  comparison 
are  used  irregularly  (Matt.  xvii.  8  and  viii.  28  ;  Luke 
xvii.  2).  The  middle  voice  is  used  correctly  but  not 
as  often  as  in  classical  Greek.  In  the  use  of  the 
tenses  Semitic  influences  may  be  felt ;  the  indicative 
is  used  in  place  of  the  future  (Mark  i.  7 ;  Luke  xii. 
39) ;  the  distinction  between  the  aorist  and  the 
perfect  is  not  always  observed  (Rom.  iii.  23-27  and 


26  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

xi.  1,  47) ;  the  indicative  future  and  the  aorist  of 
the  subjunctive  are  used  as  equivalents ;  the  optative 
tends  to  disappear ;  the  infinitive  sometimes  serves 
as  an  imperative  (Luke  xxii.  42) ;  it  is  often  used 
with  a  preposition  and  an  article  (Rom.  iv.  18  ;  Matt. 
vi.  1) ;  the  periphrastic  use  of  the  present  or  past 
participle  with  the  verb  ei/xl  (/  am)  is  very  frequent 
(Luke  vi.  43;  2  Cor.  ix.  12;  Matt.  x.  30;  Luke 
XX.  6) ;  the  periphrastic  participle  stands  for  some 
unusual  tense  or  indicates  the  permanence  or  the 
habit  of  an  action  or  a  state.  A  participle  or  a  noun 
is  placed  beside  a  verb  belonging  to  the  same  root  in 
order  to  emphasise  the  idea  (Matt.  xiii.  14).  Parti- 
ciples that  might  find  their  place  in  the  construction 
of  the  sentence  are  left  to  stand  alone,  and  words 
are  placed  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence  without 
being  attached  to  it  (Luke  xx.  27;  Phil.  iii.  9). 
Cases  required  by  verbs  are  often  not  employed,  and 
are  replaced  by  prepositions ;  and  eV  or  etV  e.g.  have  a 
modified  or  extended  meaning.  Conjunctions  are 
not  varied  nearly  so  much  as  in  classical  Greek,  Km 
(and)  is  often  used  in  ever  so  many  senses,  ^e  often 
means  now,  Iva  has  an  extended  meaning  and  governs 
without  any  definite  rule  sometimes  one  mood 
sometimes  another;  «  {if)  is  used  in  oaths  like  the 
Hebrew  im. 

The  influence  of  Latin  may  be  perceived  in  many 
ways,  for  instance  in  the  use  of  on  and  W  in  place 
of  the  accusative  and  infinitive,  in  the  tendency  to 
ignore  the  difference  between  the  aorist  and  the 
perfect,  in  the  use  of  airo  before  the  genitive  after 
verbs  that  express  fear,  and  in  certain  expressions, 

such  as  <5o9  epyacriav.  Si    i}v   amav,  to  Ikuvov  iroielv,  crv  oy^u, 

which  are  latinisms. 

Style. — Every  New  Testament  writer  has  his  own 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  27 

way  of  writing,  and  we  shall  speak  of  each  in  due 
time.  At  present  we  are  concerned  only  with 
characteristics  that  are  common  to  all  the  writers. 
As  a  rule  the  New  Testament  sentences  are  simple, 
they  contain  no  subordinate  sentences,  the  proposi- 
tions are  more  commonly  connected  by  Kal  [and)  than 
by  any  of  the  numerous  conjunctions  that  are  so 
frequently  used  in  classical  Greek.  The  matter  is 
often  not  divided  at  all,  or  if  it  is,  it  is  often  clumsily 
divided.  Bad  figures  of  speech  are  frequent:  such 
as  the  anacolouthon  or  the  oratio  pendens  ;  sometimes 
a  sentence  is  left  unfinished ;  the  construction  is 
confused  and  irregular,  it  begins  in  one  way  and 
ends  in  another.  Redundancy  and  false  emphasis 
occur.  The  authors  write  as  they  think,  and  make 
no  attempt  to  write  with  polish.  As  Viteau  says  in 
Vigouroux's  Diet,  de  la  Bible :  "  They  do  not  as  a 
rule  show  any  signs  of  labour  or  fatigue  in  writing. 
On  the  contrary  their  impressions  are  marked  with 
vivacity,  their  memory  is  prompt,  their  imagination 
is  mobile,  and  what  they  seem  to  aim  at  is  to  repre- 
sent ideas — even  when  they  are  abstract — as  concrete 
or  to  narrate  events  with  such  circumstances  and 
details  as  to  make  a  vivid  picture."  All  these 
qualities  and  defects  taken  together  have  formed  a 
style  that  is  picturesque,  full  of  ideas,  well  suited  for 
reading  in  public,  in  fact  quite  an  original  style 
without  any  model  in  former  ages  and  without  any 
copies  in  later  times. 


ST  PAUL  AND  HIS  EPISTLES 


CHAPTER   I 

The  epistles  of  St  Paul  fill  up  so  naturally  the  frame- 
work of  his  missionary  career,  and  are  so  essentially 
the  expression  of  his  inmost  thoughts  and  of  his 
religious  experience,  that  in  order  to  understand 
their  origin  or  to  watch  their  development,  we  must 
study  what  the  facts  and  the  texts  tell  us  of  the 
nationality  of  St  Paul,  of  his  personal  qualities,  his 
mind,  his  external  appearance,  his  education,  and  the 
various  influences  that  were  brought  to  bear  upon  his 
spirit. 

1.    NATIONALITY    OF  ST  PAUL 

"  I  am  a  Jew,"  says  St  Paul,  "  born  in  Tarsus  of 
Cilicia,  citizen  of  no  mean  city,  educated  in  this  city 
[Jerusalem],  I  sat  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel  and  diligently 
learned  the  law  of  our  fathers,  full  of  the  zeal  of  God 
[Acts  xxi.  39  and  xxii.  3],  whom  I  serve  like  my 
ancestors  before  me  with  a  pure  conscience  [2  Tim.  i.  3], 
I  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  I  belong  to  the 
race  of  Israel,  to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  I  am  a 
Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  a  Pharisee,  for  the  law,  a 
zealot,  a  persecutor  of  the  Church,  for  the  justice  of 
the  law,  irreproachable  (Phil.  iii.  2-6 ;  2  Cor.  xi.  22 ; 
Acts  ii.  3,  6).  I  made  progress  in  Judaism  beyond 
many  of  my  age  and  nation,  was  filled  to  excess  with 
29 


30  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

zeal  for  the  traditions  of  our  fathers  (Gal.  i.  14),  I  have 
lived  as  a  Pharisee  according  to  the  strictest  rule  of 
our  religion  (Acts  xxvi.  5).  I  am  by  birth  a  Roman 
citizen  "  (Acts  xxii.  28).  This  is  what  St  Paul  tells  us 
with  regard  to  his  nationality  and  his  youth. 

St  Jerome  says  that  St  Paul  was  born  at  Giscala 
in  Galilee,  and  that  his  parents  emigrated  to  Tarsus 
in  Cilicia  ;  but  this  must  be  a  mistake,  though  perhaps 
his  parents  did  at  one  time  live  in  Giscala.  We 
cannot  tell  when  they  went  to  Tarsus,  probably  it  was 
before  the  birth  of  St  Paul,  since  they  were  Roman 
citizens  at  the  time  of  his  birth.  They  must  have 
obtained  this  dignity  at  Tarsus  as  a  reward  for  services 
rendered  or  by  purchase.  Being  citizens  of  Tarsus, 
they  were  no  doubt  in  a  position  of  respectability ; 
their  being  Pharisees  and  Roman  citizens  points  to  the 
same  conclusion,  because  the  Pharisees  belonged  ex- 
clusively to  the  superior  classes  among  the  Jews,  and 
at  that  time  the  Romans  did  not  grant  the  privilege 
of  citizenship  to  uneducated  persons ;  moreover  the 
education  that  they  provided  for  their  son  shows  that 
destined  him  for  no  humble  career.  It  is  true  that 
they  made  him  learn  the  manual  trade  of  a  tent-maker, 
but  then  it  was  the  custom  for  every  rabbi  to  know 
some  trade  by  which  he  could  if  necessary  earn  his 
daily  bread.  As  a  matter  of  fact  St  Paul  did  provide 
for  himself  by  working  at  tent-making,  and  was  able 
to  do  without  any  help  from  his  disciples  (1  Thess.  ii. 
9 ;  2  Thess.  iii.  8).  Perhaps  the  reason  why  he  had 
to  work  was  that  his  family  fell  into  poverty,  or 
perhaps  his  relations  abandoned  him  because  of  his 
change  of  religion.  In  any  case,  the  worldly  position 
of  the  apostle  must  have  improved,  for  when  he  was 
arrested  in  Jerusalem  he  seems  to  have  had  command 
of  money ;  the  behaviour  to  him  of  the  Roman  pro- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  31 

curators,  his  appeal  to  Cesar,  his  voyage  to  Rome,  ajid 
the  way  in  which  he  hved  there,  show  that  he  was  in 
a  position  to  bear  heavy  expenses  ;  though  it  is  possible 
that  Christian  communities  helped  him. 

As  a  Jew  he  bore  the  name  of  Saul  (Desired), 
perhaps  on  account  of  King  Saul  the  best  known 
personage  in  the  history  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  ;  as 
a  Roman  citizen  he  bore  the  cognomen  of  Paul ;  we 
do  not  know  what  was  his  nomen  or  prsenomen,  and 
perhaps  he  had  none.  This  name  of  Paul  may  have 
been  adopted  because  in  some  way  or  other  the 
apostle  attached  himself  to  the  Roman  family  of  the 
iEmilii  whose  cognomen  was  Paul,  or  merely  on 
account  of  its  similiarity  to  his  Hebrew  name: 
Saul  =  Paul.  Other  names  are  known  to  have  been 
changed  in  that  way :  Jesus  =  Jason,  Joseph  =  Hege- 
sippus.  Some  have  supposed  that  the  apostle  took 
the  name  of  Paul  from  Sergius  Paulus,  the  proconsul 
of  Cyprus,  whom  he  made  a  convert  of.  But  the 
texts  of  the  Acts  does  not  favour  this  supposition, 
because  before  the  conversion  of  Sergius  Paulus  we 
read :  *'  Saul  who  was  also  called  Paul "  (xiii.  9). 
From  that  time  forth  he  is  always  called  Paul  be- 
cause of  his  connection  with  the  pagan  world,  whereas 
while  he  was  with  the  Jews  he  went  by  his  Jewish 
name ;  the  writer  of  the  Acts  clearly  intended  to  call 
attention  to  this  distinction. 


2.    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    ST    PAUL 

Contemporary  testimony  to  the  personal  appear- 
ance of  the  apostle  is  scanty,  what  testimony  we  have 
is  of  later  date  and  does  not  appear  to  deserve  much 
attention.      He   cannot   have    been   strong-looking : 


32  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

"the  bodily  presence  is  feeble"  said  his  adversaries 
among  the  Corinthians  (2  Cor.  x.  10).  The  likeness 
painted  for  us  by  later  tradition  was  not  intended  to 
flatter  him :  "  He  was  short,  bald,  bow-legged,  well 
knit,  his  eyebrows  met,  his  nose  was  large,  he  was 
gracious,  sometimes  he  was  like  a  man,  sometimes 
like  an  angel "  (Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  3).  From 
this  and  from  the  descriptions  by  John  of  Antioch, 
Nicephorus,  and  the  Philopatris  of  Pseudo-Lucian,  we 
may  conclude  that  St  Paul  had  an  aquiline  nose,  dark 
hair  turning  grey,  that  he  was  slightly  humpbacked, 
that  his  face  was  pale,  very  expressive,  very  winning, 
that  his  manner  was  full  of  dignity,  and  that  his  ap- 
pearance inspired  respect  and  affection. 

He  does  complain  of  bodily  infirmities  (2  Cor.  xii. 
5-10),  yet  his  constitution  must  have  been  vigorous. 
How  else  could  he  have  travelled  so  much,  often  on 
foot,  with  few  if  any  comforts  ;  or  how  could  he  have 
laboured  so  incessantly  by  day  to  earn  his  bread  and 
by  night  to  preach  the  Gospel ;  how  could  he  have 
stood  his  many  anxieties,  his  trials,  his  shipwrecks, 
his  sufferings  by  scourging  and  stoning?  (2  Cor.  xi. 
23).  "  Labour,  painfulness,  watchings,  hunger  and 
thirst,  fastings  often,  cold  and  nakedness,  besides  my 
daily  instance  the  solicitude  for  all  the  churches." 
Yet  he  mentions  also  a  sting  of  the  flesh,  o■K6\o^fr  r^ 
a-apKi,  an  angel  of  Satan  to  buffet  him  in  order  that  he 
might  not  be  made  proud  by  the  revelations  that  had 
been  vouchsafed  to  him. 

Was  that  sting  of  the  flesh  the  bodily  infirmity 
mentioned  ?  (Gal.  xiv.  13).  Some  critics  think  it  was. 
But  we  do  not  think  so,  for  that  infirmity  must  have 
been  of  a  temporary  character.  How  could  it  be 
permanent  ?  For  any  infirmity  that  exposed  the 
apostle  to  contempt,  or  rendered  him  repulsive,  or 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  33 

was  a  great  trial  to  his  auditors,  would  have  entailed 
failure  in  his  work  as  a  missionary. 

Probably  that  thorn  in  his  flesh  was  not,  as  some 
have  thought,  a  temptation  to  sins  of  the  flesh,  because 
(1  Cor.  vii.  6-8)  he  speaks  in  a  veiled  way  of  having 
the  gift  of  continency.  That  thorn,  for  it  is  a  thorn 
and  not  a  sting,  a-KoXoylr  not  Kevrpov,  was  some  illness. 
He  speaks  a  little  higher  up  of  his  infirmities,  and 
then  (2  Cor.  xii.  9)  he  glories  in  infirmities,  which  must 
be  those  to  which  he  refers  in  verse  7.  What  was 
that  illness  ?  Was  it  cephalalgia,  or  ophthalmia,  gout, 
sciatica,  epilepsy,  orator's  cramp  ?  We  can  only  con- 
jecture. But  it  was  bodily,  painful,  humiliating,  and 
it  was  frequent  or  even  constant,  as  we  may  judge  by 
the  Greek  verbs  which  he  makes  use  of  in  describing 
it  and  which  indicate  a  permanent  state. 

Was  St  Paul  married  ?  Primitive  tradition  does 
not  say,  and  what  we  find  in  his  epistles  is  not  very 
conclusive.  TertuUian,  St  Jerome,  St  Epiphanius, 
and  St  John  Chrysostom  hold  that  he  was  not 
married ;  Clement  of  Alexandria  holds  that  he  was, 
for  he  says :  "  Paul  in  one  of  his  epistles  sends  a 
salutation  to  his  own  wife."  That  is  a  false  inter- 
pretation of  Philip,  iv.  3.  "I  pray  thee  also  a-vv^uye 
ypija-ie  [worthy  companion  or  yoke-fellow]  to  help 
them."  Is  a-uv^uye  to  be  translated  companion  or  wife, 
or  is  it  a  proper  name  ?  Whatever  the  right  trans- 
lation may  be,  it  cannot  be  wife  because  <yvy)(TLe  is 
masculine.  From  his  exhortations  (1  Cor.  vii.  8) 
one  would  say  that  he  was  not  married  :  '*  I  say  to 
those  who  are  unmarried  or  widowed  that  it  is 
well  for  them  to  remain  as  they  are,  as  I  remain  my- 
self." It  is  true  that  aya/mog  means  either  a  celibate  or 
a  widower,  from  which  some  conclude  that  St  Paul 
was  a  widower,  and  had  been  married  in  his  youth. 


34  HISTORY  OF   THE   BOOKS 

It  was  the  custom  among  the  Jews  to  marry  at  the 
age  of  twenty-five,  as  a  faithful  observer  of  national 
customs  he  should  have  married  at  that  age.  He 
must  also,  so  it  is  said,  have  been  married  to  be  a 
member  of  the  Sanhedrim.  In  Acts  xxvi.  10  he 
does  say  :  "  I  have  cast  into  prison  many  of  the  saints, 
and  when  they  were  putting  them  to  death  I  brought 
my  vote  [stone],"  but  he  may  have  meant  only  that 
^  he  approved  the  sentence,  because  it  is  not  likely  that 
he  so  young,  a  stranger,  and  of  obscure  birth,  should 
have  been  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  which  was  an 
aristocratic  body  consisting  of  men  of  mature  age, 
priests,  doctors,  and  of  the  most  prominent  men  of 
the  nation  (Mark  xiv.  53  and  xv.  1). 

Therefore  most  probably  he  was  never  married,  or 
else  he  was  a  widower  at  the  time  of  his  missionary 
journeys,  for  he  could  hardly  have  undertaken  them 
if  he  had  had  home  ties.  1  Cor.  ix.  5  shows  that  he 
had  no  wife  with  him. 

Of  nervous,  perhaps  even  bilious  temperament,  St. 
Paul  was  quick  and  impetuous.  He  was  very  sensi- 
tive to  impressions,  he  passed  rapidly  from  one 
emotion  to  another,  he  could  tremble  first  and  then 
be  filled  with  hope,  he  could  pass  quickly  from  anger 
to  meekness,  he  could  be  ironical  and  then  affec- 
tionate. He  knew  well  what  it  was  to  be  discouraged, 
but  he  was  never  cast  down.  His  letters  contain  the 
greatest  possible  diversity  of  emotions,  and  not  one 
of  them — not  even  the  epistle  to  the  Romans — is  in 
any  sense  a  didactic  treatise.  Sabatier  (I'Ap.  Paul, 
p.  75)  has  well  described  this  intense  individuality : 
"  Its  striking  originality  seems  to  consist  in  the  fruit- 
fulness  of  the  union  of  two  spiritual  activities  or  of 
two  orders  of  faculties  that  are  seldom  found  combined 
in  one   personality.     I   mean   dialectical  power  and 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  35 

religious  inspiration,  the  rational  and  the  mystical 
elements,  or  to  use  his  own  language :  the  activity  of 
WW  (mind)  and  that  of  the  -Trveufxa  (spirit)."  "  Add  to 
these  qualities,  says  Findlay  "  (Hastings,  Diet,  of  Bible, 
3,  p.  699)  "  the  warmth  of  the  heart  of  an  apostle,  the 
ardour  of  passion  and  imagination  which  melted 
together  his  mystical  intuitions  and  his  logical  con- 
ceptions, his  delicate  sensibility,  his  energy  of  will, 
his  masculine  sincerity,  his  almost  feminine  tenderness, 
the  rapidity  of  his  thought,  the  subtlety  of  his  spirit, 
his  humour,  his  perspicacity  of  moral  observation,  his 
tact  and  ability,  his  genius  for  organisation,  his  innate 
power  of  command,  his  gift  of  vigorous  and  creative  ex- 
pression which  supplied  him  with  an  original  clothing 
suitable  to  his  thoughts ;  all  these  qualities  combined 
contributed  to  make  of  the  apostle  of  Christ  the  master 
builder  of  the  universal  Church  and  of  Christian 
theology." 

3.    INFLUENCES    FELT    BY    ST    PAUL 

We  have  now  to  see  what  kind  of  education  St 
Paul  had  and  how  it  acted  upon  his  mind  and  char- 
acter. Being  a  Jew,  born  among  Greeks,  brought 
up  in  Jerusalem  in  the  school  of  the  rabbins,  being 
also  a  Roman  citizen,  he  was  evidently  subject  to  a 
great  variety  of  influences.  It  is  of  course  difficult 
to  trace  distinctly  their  effects  upon  him,  yet  from 
his  epistles  some  significant  facts  may  be  gathered. 

And  first,  Greek  influence  was  not  in  his  case  very 
powerful.  In  spite  of  what  some  people  have  said, 
we  maintain  that  he  cannot  have  studied  grammar  or 
rhetoric  in  the  schools  at  Tarsus.  His  Greek,  as  we 
shall  see,  is  not  the  literary  but  the  conversational 
Greek,  it  betrays  no  signs  of  any  kind  of  classical 


/ 


36  HISTORY   OF  THE   BOOKS 

education,  for  all  the  bad  grammatical  forms  that  a 
master  would  have  taught  him  to  avoid,  occur  in 
almost  every  line.  It  is  said  that  he  disdained  to 
employ  the  learned  forms  of  the  construction  of  Greek 
phrases,  it  would  be  truer  to  say  that  he  did  not  know 
them,  or  that  he  purposely  ignored  them.  Neither 
does  he  know  rhetorical  rules ;  his  dialectics  have 
nothing  in  common  with  Aristotle's  or  consequently 
with  ours.  It  happens  sometimes  that  in  order  to 
establish  his  reasonings  in  accordance  with  our  logical 
procedure,  one  has  to  transplace  his  terms  or  to  put 
them  in  some  other  order  than  that  in  which  he  has 
placed  them. 

This  is  not  the  opinion  of  all  the  critics  however. 
Heinrici  {Zweite  Brief  Korinth.  p.  451)  maintains 
that  in  the  form  and  method  of  the  discourse  St  Paul 
comes  closer  to  the  philosophical  style  of  the  cynics 
or  stoics,  than  to  the  rabbinical  dialectics,  and  that 
his  argumentations  remind  one  of  popular  Greek 
rhetoric  and  is  strikingly  similar  to  those  of  Epictetus. 
We  do  not  know  that  anything  of  real  value  can  be 
said  on  this  subject,  for  it  is  after  all  to  a  great  extent 
a  question  of  taste.  But  it  may  be  useful  to  notice 
that  a  great  number  of  words  and  expressions  that 
are  used  by  St  Paul  are  also  to  be  found  in  Plato. 
As  regards  the  vocabulary  St  Paul  is  the  most 
classical  of  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
He  borrows  some  terms  from  Greek  life,  some  from 

the  games  of  the  circus  Spojuo^,  Kara^pa^evco,  TruKreuw  etc., 

some  from  the  civic  life  of  the  Greeks  fevo?,  TrapoiKosy 
and  some  from  the  equipment  of  the  Roman  soldiers 
(1  Th.  V.  8 ;  Eph.  vi.  13). 

He  seems  to  have  known  little  of  the  works  of 
Greek  authors,  for  no  clear  signs  of  their  influence 
can  be  discerned  in  the  epistles.     He  says  indeed  that 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  37 

he  wishes  to  know  nothing  of  the  wisdom  of  the 
philosophers  (1  Cor.  i.  17  and  ii.  5).  Nevertheless 
three  quotations  occur  in  the  epistles,  and  a  fourth  in 
the  discourse  in  the  Areopagus.  No  one  can  say  that 
the  number  of  quotations  is  considerable,  besides  the 
passage  from  the  Thais  of  Menander  (1  Cor.  xv.  33) 
as  well  as  the  one  from  the  Oracles  of  Epimenides 
(Tit.  i.  12)  were  probably  proverbial  sentences  and  are 
found  in  other  authors :  the  former  in  Euripides  and 
the  latter  in  Callimachus  ;  the  third  is  a  verbal  coinci- 
dence of  six  words  with  Aristotle.  The  one  in  the 
discourse  in  the  Areopagus  is  no  doubt  taken  from 
the  writings  of  the  poets  Aratos  and  Cleanthus.  St 
Paul  distinctly  says  so  and  introduces  a  yap  which  is 
in  the  original  text  but  was  of  no  advantage  to  him 
in  his  argument.  But  do  we  possess  that  discourse 
as  it  was  delivered  ?  Or  did  the  author  of  the  Acts — 
according  to  the  prevailing  custom — correct,  orna- 
ment, and  edit  the  speech  ?  In  any  case,  these  four 
quotations,  supposing  them  to  be  beyond  question,  y 
do  not  prove  that  St  Paul  had  any  extensive  ac- 
quaintance with  Greek  literature.  There  are  some 
other  passages  which  might  betray  an  acquaintance 
with  Euripides,  iEschylus,  and  Sophocles,  but  they 
are  hardly  definite  enough  to  form  any  opinion  on. 
It  would  be  an  exaggeration  all  the  same  to  conclude 
that  St  Paul  was  quite  unacquainted  with  Greek 
culture,  that  cannot  have  been  the  case,  because  his 
mind  was  too  open.  If  nothing  in  his  epistles  mani-  , 
fests  this  knowledge,  it  is  because  as  he  says  he  would  ' 
not  among  his  disciples  know  anything  except  Jesus 
Christ  (1  Cor.  ii.  2),  and  he  preached  Him  without 
verbal  art  or  wisdom  in  order  not  to  take  away  the 
power  of  the  cross  of  Christ  {ih.  i.  17). 

We  doubt  however  whether   any   specific   Greek 


38  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

doctrines  entered  in  any  way  into  the  teaching  of  the 
apostle.  We  acknowledge  that  he  has  some  points 
in  common  with  Greek  philosophy,  but  they  came  to 
him  from  other  sources  and  especially  from  the  Old 
Testament.  His  moral  teaching  reminds  one  of  the 
best  stoic  philosophy,  and  even  of  the  very  expres- 
sions made  use  of  in  that  School ;  many  coincidences 
can  be  shown  between  the  epistles  of  St  Paul  and 
the  writings  of  Seneca.  "  But,"  says  Lightfoot  (Ep. 
to  the  Philip,  p.  300),  "  I  have  already  ventured  to 
attribute  the  intense  moral  sincerity  of  the  stoics  to 
their  oriental  origin.  There  would  be  nothing  extra- 
vagant in  the  statement  that  they  owed  certain  moral 
maxims  and  certain  theological  terms  (though  cer- 
tainly not  their  principal  doctrines)  directly  or 
indirectly  to  the  flourishing  Jewish  schools  of  the 
period  whose  doctrines  were  drawn  from  the  Old 
Testament."  As  St  Paul  drew  all  his  moral  doctrines 
from  the  Sacred  Books,  it  is  not  surprising  that  points 
of  contact  should  exist  between  him  and  a  stoicism 
of  oriental  and  perhaps  Jewish  origin. 

It  has  been  said  that  St  Paul  by  teaching  the  uni- 
versality of  salvation,  the  equality  of  men  before  God, 
and  the  catholicity  and  unity  of  the  Church,  has 
realised  from  the  religious  point  of  view  the  funda- 
mental ideas  of  Greek  philosophy.  But  we  must  not 
forget  that  this  universality  of  salvation  and  this 
union  of  all  nations  with  the  One  God,  was  the 
teaching  of  the  prophets  of  Israel,  and  that  conse- 
quently he  drew  from  the  Old  Testament  these  ideas 
of  which  he  afterwards  worked  out  all  the  develop- 
ments. Besides  of  course  he  may  have  taken  them 
from  the  teaching  of  Christ  (Matt,  xxviii.  19 ;  Mark 
xvi.  15;  Luke  xxiv.  47). 

The  influence  of  Rome  may  be   discerned  in   St 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  39 

Paul  in  many  ways.  He  knows  quite  well  his  rights 
as  a  Roman  citizen,  and  makes  use  of  them  (Acts 
XXV.  10).  The  idea  of  the  prerogative  of  the  Roman 
citizen  repeatedly  shows  itself  in  the  epistles :  "Our 
participation  in  the  affairs  of  the  city  irokireuij.a  is  in 
heaven  "  (Philip,  i.  27),  "  Fulfil  your  duties  as  citizens 
TToXireuea-Oe  in  a  Way  worthy  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ." 
He  makes  use  of  the  legal  distinction  between  cives 
and  peregrini :  "  You  are  no  longer  strangers  ^evoi 
but  citizens  ovjUTroXirai"  (Eph.  ii.  19).  His  doctrine  of 
adoption  is  of  Greco-Roman  origin,  his  ideas  of  the 
Christian  being  heir  of  God  and  co-heir  with  Christ 
come  to  him  from  Roman  law,  his  conception  of  the 
universality  of  the  Christian  society  comes  originally 
from  the  Jewish  Theocracy,  but  was  also  suggested 
by  the  vastness  of  the  Roman  Empire  comprising 
what  was  to  the  apostle  the  known  world. 

All  these  influences  were  slight  compared  with  that 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  Jewish  theology  of 
the  time.  The  distinction  between  these  two  is 
important,  for  there  are  doctrines  taught  by  the  rabbis 
that  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures. 

From  his  earliest  years  Paul  was  fed  with  the 
Old  Testament,  he  had  learned  to  spell  in  it  at  school, 
and  had  heard  it  read  and  expounded  in  the  synagogue. 
At  Jerusalem  under  Gamaliel  he  had  been  taught 
how  to  scrutinise  the  text  and  to  search  out  its 
various  meanings.  Therefore  he  became  as  it  were 
saturated  with  it,  he  draws  his  most  important 
doctrines  from  it,  his  ideas  of  God,  of  God's  justice,  of 
holiness,  and  of  sin  come  from  Holy  Writ. 

His  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God 
the  Creator,  centre,  and  end  of  the  universe  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  Old  Testament.  His  theology  is 
quite  theocentric,  everything  comes  from  God  and 


40  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

goes  back  to  God  {cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  and  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossians).  He  continually  quotes 
from  the  Old  Testament,  he  bases  all  his  principal 
arguments  upon  it  (Rom.  ix.  25-33  and  iii.  11-18  and 
iv.  7-8),  and  his  sentences  are  constantly  charged  with 
reminiscences  of  it.  As  many  as  seventy-five  simi- 
larities of  ideas  or  expressions  are  to  be  found  to  the 
sacred  books  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  Textual  quotations  amount  to  ninety 
in  that  epistle  and  to  thirty-six  in  the  Hebrews.  Of 
these  sixty-three  are  introduced  with  the  formulas : 
"  as  it  is  written  "  or  "  the  scripture  saith  "  or  "  David 
saith."  As  a  rule  he  quotes  from  the  Septuagint ; 
but  sometimes  he  quotes  from  the  Hebrew  text,  and 
this  is  the  case  especially  in  passages  where  the 
original  fits  in  better  with  his  argument. 

It  is  not  easy  to  say  from  what  kind  of  manuscript 
his  quotations  are  taken,  as  a  rule  one  would  say  that 
it  was  from  one  that  resembled  the  Alexandrine,  but 
some  seem  to  come  from  one  that  resembled  the 
Vatican  Codex.  His  quotations  from  Job  are  not 
from  the  Septuagint,  some  of  them  seem  to  come 
from  a  text  similar  to  Theodotion's.  At  times  he 
quotes  from  memory,  or  reproduces  an  aramaic  text, 
thus  the  quotation  Eph.  iv.  8  corresponds  neither 
with  the  Hebrew  nor  the  Septuagint  but  is  similar  to 
the  Targum  on  the  Psalms.  He  loved — like  his  con- 
temporaries among  the  Jewish  teachers — to  bring 
together  passages  from  many  books  to  support  his 
reasonings  :  thus  in  Rom.  iii.  10  we  find  five  passages 
from  the  Psalms,  one  from  Isaias,  and  one  from  the 
Proverbs,  to  prove  the  universality  of  sin ;  in  2  Cor. 
vi.  16  there  are  passages  from  Leviticus,  Ezechiel, 
Isaias,  and  Jeremias,  to  prove  that  we  are  temples  of 
the  Living  God.     There  may  have  existed  a  written 


OF  THE  NEW   TESTAMENT  41 

or  more  probably  an  oral  collection  of  extracts  from 
the  Old  Testament  to  prove  such  and  such  doctrines, 
a  collection  that  might  be  called  dicta  probantia. 

Jewish  theology  had  also  of  necessity  a  great 
influence  on  St  Paul.  His  early  education  was 
altogether  Jewish,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that 
he  attended  any  Greek  school  in  his  native  place. 
He  was  sent  to  Jerusalem  probably  when  he  was 
twelve  years  old,  for  such  was  the  custom,  and  he 
studied  Jewish  theology  under  Gamaleel.  He  was  a 
diligent  student  and  made  considerable  progress  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  Law  of  Moses  and  of  the 
traditions  of  the  fathers  (Gal.  i.  14).  He  learned  the 
rules  of  rabbinical  dialectics,  and  became  imbued 
with  the  doctrines  of  Jewish  theology.  We  see  the 
evidence  of  this  in  his  epistles.  We  must  not  enter 
into  details,  but  we  must  mention  the  principal  points 
that  indicate  Jewish  influence  in  the  epistles  both  in 
form  and  in  doctrine. 

The  teaching  of  the  Jewish  doctors  was  imparted 
by  the  method  of  question  and  answer,  as  may  be 
gathered  from  the  talmudic  treatises,  it  was  based 
upon  the  sayings  of  the  ancients  and  relied  upon  the 
mystical  and  typological  senses  of  Scripture.  These 
characteristics  may  also  be  seen  in  the  epistles,  they 
are  full  of  interrogations  and  of  what  may  be  called 
dialogues,  they  often  appeal  to  ancient  traditions,  and 
the  writer  expounds  Scripture  according  to  the  seven 
rules  of  interpretation — the  Middoth — laid  down  by 
Hillel.  The  passages  Rom.  v.  8  and  viii.  32-34  are 
applications  of  the  first  rule,  the  inference  from  the 
less  to  the  more,  in  other  words  :  the  a  fortiori.  The 
analysis  of  words  and  of  ideas  held  an  important  place  t^ 
in  these  rules,  and  it  is  evident  that  St  Paul  often 
employs  that  method.     It  must  however  be  admitted 


42  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

that  many  of  these  rules — analogy,  a  fortiori — are  so 
much  part  of  the  logic  of  the  human  mind  that  they 
have  been  in  use  ever  since  man  began  to  reason. 
Therefore  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  should  find 
them  in  St  Paul. 

We  come  now  to  more  special  characteristics.  St 
Paul's  method  of  exegesis  resembles  the  rabbinical 
method  in  being  literal  and  typological.  His  prin- 
ciples of  hermeneutics  and  his  formulas  for  quoting 
are  rabbinical.  For  instance :  he  dwells  on  some 
grammatical  detail  in  order  to  extract  from  it  con- 
clusions of  the  highest  doctrinal  importance.  Some- 
times the  foundation  of  his  argument  is  very  unstable, 
as  Gal.  iii.  16  where  he  argues  from  the  singular  "  his 
seed  "  to  attribute  to  Christ  alone  the  promises  that 
were  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  race,  whereas  the 
Hebrew  word  in  the  singular  designates  Abraham's 
whole  posterity.  Or  again,  he  takes  a  passage  from 
its  context,  and  interprets  it  in  a  sense  that  the 
original  text  will  not  bear,  as  in  1  Cor.  xv.  45  where 
he  gives  to  the  word  soul  in  Gen.  ii.  7  a  meaning  that 
it  had  not ;  he  gives  it  an  allegorical  meaning.  He 
also  takes  allegorically  the  story  of  Sarah  and  Agar, 
these  two  women  are  the  two  covenants  (Gal.  iv.  21). 
In  1  Cor.  X.  4  he  puts  a  spiritual  meaning  on  the 
rabbinical  tradition  of  the  rock  that  followed  the  Jews 
in  the  desert :  that  rock  he  says  was  Christ.  Twice 
over  he  says  that  all  that  happened  to  the  Israelites 
was  a  figure  intended  for  our  instruction.  And  it  is 
a  rabbinical  tradition  that  he  gives  (1  Cor.  xi.  10) 
when  he  says  that  women  must  wear  on  their  heads  a 
mark  of  inferiority  on  account  of  the  angels. 

Nevertheless  his  originality  is  very  marked,  for  even 
when  he  follows  the  rabbinical  methods  of  demon- 
stration, his  conclusions  are  not  at  all  the  same  as 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  43 

theirs.  And  when  what  he  teaches  is  analogous  to 
the  Jewish  teaching,  he  transforms  it,  changing  a 
legal  or  juridical  concept  into  a  moral  or  religious 
truth. 

There  are  beyond  doubt  points  of  contact  between 
rabbinical  and  pauline  doctrine.  It  could  not  be 
otherwise.  No  matter  how  specially  enlightened  a 
man  may  become  he  cannot  divest  himself  in  a 
moment  of  the  ideas  of  his  former  life,  all  that  he 
can  do  is  to  interpret  them  in  that  new  light.  That 
is  what  St  Paul  did ;  he  kept  something  of  what  he 
had  learned  from  Gamaliel,  but  he  transformed  it  by 
the  power  of  his  own  originality  and  by  the  revelation 
vouchsafed  to  him  by  Our  Lord. 

Rabbinical  doctrines  are  found  in  apocryphal  books, 
such  as  the  Book  of  Enoch  170-64  before  Christ,  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon  63-40  before  Christ,  the  Book  of 
the  Jubilees  50  after  Christ,  the  Assumption  of  Moses 
30  before  Christ,  the  Sibylline  Books,  the  Second 
Book  of  Esdras,  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  the 
Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  the  Ascension 
of  Isaias,  the  Apocalypse  of  Moses,  the  Secrets  of 
Enoch — these  latter  books  are  of  more  recent  date, 
and  are  made  up  partly  of  Christian  additions  and 
of  interpolations — and  talmudic  writings.  The  first- 
mentioned  books — the  apocryphal  ones — are  fairly 
well  known  to  belong  to  dates  before  the  Christian 
era  or  to  the  first  century  after  Christ.  The  others 
belong  to  the  end  of  the  second  century  or  later, 
ideas  of  earlier  date  are  to  be  found  in  them,  but  the 
line  to  be  drawn  between  what  is  ancient  and  what 
is  recent  is  not  easy  to  determine.  Therefore  one 
has  to  be  very  careful  in  pronouncing  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  doctrines  that  we  are  going  to  mention  as 
having  been  taken  from  the  Talmuds.     We  intend 


i^ 


44  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

not  to  speak  of  any  but  those  that  appear  quite 
certainly  to  be  common  to  Jewish  writings  and  to 
the  pauline  epistles. 

For  St  Paul  and  the  Jewish  writers,  the  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  sin  was  death  (1  Cor.  xv.  21 ;  Rom. 
V.  12),  which  passages  are  probably  to  be  traced  back 
to  Wisdom  ii.  23  and  Eccli.  xxv.  24,  and  this  idea  is 
also  found  in  the  rabbins  (Weber  Jiid.  Theol.  p.  247). 
Another  consequence  of  that  sin  was  that  all  creation 
deviated  from  its  path  (Rom.  viii.  18-23 ;  2  Esdras 
vii.  75  and  xiii.  26-29  ;  Enoch  xlv.  5. )  The  law  was 
promulgated  by  angels  (Gal.  iii.  19 ;  Josephus,  Ant. 
jud.  15,  5,  3  ;  Jubilees,  1,  2).  The  Messias  was  to  be 
the  mediator  between  God  and  men  (Gal.  iii.  17-20 ; 
Assumpt.  of  Moses,  1,  13).  Some  of  the  details  of  St 
Paul's  description  of  the  end  of  the  world  appear  to 
have  been  taken  from  popular  Jewish  beliefs  or  from 
rabbinical  tradition.  According  to  2  Esdras  v.  1-12, 
Jubilees,  23,  and  Assumpt.  of  Moses,  10,  the  coming 
of  the  Messias  was  to  be  preceeded  by  many  tribula- 
tions {cf.  2  Thess.  ii.  1-12) ;  the  Messias  is  to  come 
at  the  last  day  with  His  angels  and  His  saints  (1  Thess. 
iii.  13 ;  Enoch  i.  9 ;  2  Esdras  vii.  28).  A  trumpet 
is  to  sound  (1  Cor.  xv.  52 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  15 ; 
2  Esdras  vi.  23) ;  the  adversary  of  Christ  (2  Thess. 
ii.  1-12)  is  also  found  in  2  Esdras  v.  1 ;  Sibyl.  Orac. 
3,  60  (Weber,  op.  cit  p.  365).  On  the  reign  of 
Christ  at  the  end  of  the  world,  and  on  the  Resurrec- 
tion {cf.  1  Cor.  XV.  20-28  and  Baruch  xxx.  39,  72  and 
Ps.  Philo.  Ant.  bihl  p.  296  ;  Assumpt.  of  Moses,  10, 
1;  Jubilees,  23,  50;  2  Esdras  vii.);  undeniable 
resemblances  will  be  noticed,  but  everything  that  the 
Jews  take  materially  is  taken  spiritually  by  St  Paul. 
The  hierarchies  of  the  angels  are  almost  identically 
the   same  in  St  Paul  (Eph.  iii.   10;  Col.  ii.   10-15; 


OF  THE  NEW   TESTAMENT  45 

Rom.  viii.  38 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  24 ;  Eph.  i.  21),  and  in  the 
Secrets  of  Enoch,  20,  Enoch  Ixi.  10.  The  third 
heaven  and  the  Paradise  of  which  St  Paul  speaks 
Cor.  xii.  2)  have  their  parallel  in  Jewish  tradition 
which  knew  of  seven  heavens  and  placed  Paradise  in 
the  third  :  Secrets  of  Enoch,  3,  8  ;  Apoc.  of  Moses,  40 
(Tisch.  ed.). 

It  is  supposed  that  St  Paul  extracted  from  some 
extra-canonical  book  the  passage  1  Cor.  ii.  9 :  "  As  it 
is  written :  eye  hath  not  seen."  Origen  on  Matt, 
xxvii.  9  says  that  the  quotation  is  not  to  be  found  in 
any  book  except  the  Secrets  of  Elias.  St  Jerome 
holds  that  the  apostle  paraphrased  Isaias  Ixi  v.  4,  yet 
admits  that  the  quotation  is  found  in  the  Apocalypse 
of  Elias  and  in  the  Ascension  of  Isaias.  It  is,  in 
fact,  almost  word  for  word  in  the  Latin  version  of 
the  last-mentioned  work,  but  it  is  quite  possible  that 
some  Christian  copyist  interpolated  it.  It  occurs 
also  in  a  Jewish  book  of  about  the  year  70  in  the  first 
Christian  century  entitled  the  Book  of  Antiquities 
and  falsely  attributed  to  Philo,  which  would  only  go 
to  prove  that  the  quotation  was  current  at  that 
period  and  was  perhaps  borrowed  from  some 
anthology  of  passages  from  the  Old  Testament. 

We  come  now  to  the  fundamental  ideas  of  pauline 
theology,  and  we  have  to  see  how  far  they  coincide 
with  rabbinical  ideas.  St  Paul's  doctrine  of  sin,  its 
origin  and  nature,  and  his  doctrine  as  to  salvation, 
have  something  in  common  with  rabbinical  doctrines. 
According  to  the  latter  there  is  in  man  an  inclination 
towards  evil  which  little  by  little  grows  and  becomes 
so  strong  that  man  is  unable  to  resist  it  (Weber,  op. 
cit.  225.)  St  Paul  with  a  deeper  knowledge  of 
human  nature  proclaims  the  existence  of  an  evil 
principle   which   he   calls   eiriQuixla   or    concupiscence 


}/ 


46  HISTORY  OF  THE   BOOKS 

(Rom.  vii.  8)  which  occasioned  by  the  law  gives  life 
to  sin  ;  "I  see  in  my  members  another  law  struggling 
against  the  law  of  my  reason  and  making  me  a 
captive  of  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members  .  .  . 
by  the  flesh  I  am  the  slave  of  the  law  of  sin  "  (Rom. 
vii.  22.)  But  these  ideas  are  not  borrowed  from  the 
rabbis,  they  are  taken  from  the  Old  Testament  (Ps. 
li.  5-7.)  There  is  also  a  resemblance  between  the 
flesh  crdp^  from  which  comes  sin  atxapria  :  "  the  law  of 
sin  is  in  my  members  "  (Rom.  vii.  23)  and  the  evil 
inclination  yecer  hara  of  Jewish  theology  which 
dwells  originally  in  the  flesh. 

It  has  been  said  that  St  Paul  borrowed  his  doctrine 
of  the  atonement  from  the  Jewish  doctors.  These 
taught  that  the  sinner  was  justified  by  the  merits  of 
the  just  being  attributed  to  him,  by  expiatory  sacri- 
fices, and  by  the  imputation  to  an  act  of  a  meritorious 
value  that  in  itself  the  act  did  not  possess.  These 
conceptions  are  feeble  and  vague  compared  to  St 
Paul's  profound  thoughts  on  Christ  the  Redeemer  of 
the  human  race  by  His  Death,  and  on  the  Christian 
united  with  Christ  living  with  His  life  and  participat- 
ing in  His  merits.  The  Atonement  Doctrine  in  St 
Paul  is  directly  taken  from  the  Old  Testament.  It 
is  in  Isaias  viii.  that  he  read  of  the  expiatory  suffer- 
ings of  the  Servant  of  Yahweh. 

Predestination  and  the  Resurrection  were  also 
taught  in  the  schools  of  the  Jews  ( Josephus,  Antiq. 
18,  1,  3,  4 ;  c/!  Acts  xxiv.  15),  but  they  are  also 
found  at  least  in  germ  in  the  Old  Testament.  St 
Paul  has  developed  them  and  made  them  more  clear, 
and  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  he  has 
removed  the  gross  materialism  of  his  contemporaries 
among  the  Jews.  You  have  only  to  compare  the 
opinion  of  the  rabbis  that  the  body  would  rise  in 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  47 

exactly  the  same  state  and  clothed  exactly  as  it  was 
clothed  at  the  moment  of  death,  with  his  idea  of  the 
transformation  of  the  body  from  psychic  to  pneumatic 
(1  Cor.  XV.  42).  As  to  his  ideas  on  angels  and 
demons,  he  may  as  easily  have  taken  them  from  the 
Old  Testament  as  from  the  rabbinical  schools. 
Originally  they  come  from  the  Bible,  and  he  could 
equally  with  his  contemporaries  have  discovered 
them  there. 

The  question  arises  whether  besides  the  Palestinian 
Jewish  doctrines,  he  was  acquainted  with  the  Alexand- 
rine learning.  It  seems  quite  possible  that  he  may 
have  read  the  book  of  Wisdom ;  his  description  of 
paganism  with  its  moral  corruption  (Rom.  i.  18)  may 
have  been  inspired  by  Wisdom  xiii.  and  xiv. ;  the 
passage  on  the  sovereignty  of  God  (Rom.  ix.  14-23) 
may  have  come  from  the  twelfth  chapter.  One  would 
say  that  there  are  even  literal  reminiscences  {cf. 
Rom.  ix.  9  and  Wis.  xii.  12 ;  Rom.  ix.  22  and  Wis. 
xii.  17,  etc.).  The  comparison  of  the  potter  (Wis.  xv. 
6-10)  making  vessels  for  clean  and  unclean  purposes, 
is  found  in  much  the  same  words  in  Rom.  ix.  21, 
though  the  object  aimed  at  is  different.  Compare 
also  the  passages:  Wis.  vii.  22.  9,  6,  17  =  1  Cor.  ii. 
6-16  ;  Wis.  xi.  23  =  Rom.  xi.  32  ;  Wis.  v.  17  =  Eph.  vi. 
11;  Wis.  iii.  8  =  1  Cor.  vi.  2. 

Did  he  know  the  writings  of  Philo  of  Alexandria  ? 
Probably  not,  though  there  are  many  points  of  re- 
semblance between  the  two  writers.  But  the  similarity 
is  slight,  and  may  arise  from  both  of  them  having 
drawn  on  the  Old  Testament,  or  from  their  treating 
of  the  same  questions  and  so  having  to  express  the 
same  ideas. 

From  this  summary  study  of  the  origins  of  pauline 
ideas  the  result  that  we  obtain  is  that  the  Old  Testa- 


48  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

merit  is  the  principal  source  of  the  Apostle's  doctrine, 
his  own  religious  experience  and  especially  his  con- 
version developed  it,  and  above  all  it  was  derived 
from  the  revelation  made  to  him  by  Christ.  His 
primitive  thoughts  were  transformed  by  these  three 
factors,  and  the  most  important  of  the  three  is  the  last- 
mentioned.  Over  and  over  again  he  asserts  that  his 
doctrine  comes  directly  from  Christ  (1  Cor.  xi.  23, 
xiv.  37  ;  1  Thess.  iv.  15),  that  he  had  learned  what  he 
taught  by  a  personal  revelation  (Rom.  xvi.  25 ; 
1  Cor.  ii.  10  ;  Gal.  i.  12  ;  Eph.  iii.  3).  Another  im- 
portant source  of  his  gospel  was  the  Christian  tradition 
as  to  the  life  and  teaching  of  Our  Saviour.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  on  this  point,  for  it  is  possible  to  extract 
from  the  epistles  a  fairly  complete  life  of  Christ,  at 
least  as  regards  the  principal  events :  birth,  passion, 
death,  and  resurrection.  Therefore  we  must  by  no 
means  leave  out  of  account  the  influence  of  God  on 
the  mind  of  St  Paul.  We  may  seem  to  explain  facts 
and  doctrines  by  the  natural  play  of  events  and  ex- 
perience, but  we  never  forget  the  natural  or  the  super- 
natural impulse  that  came  from  God. 


4.    HISTORY    OF    ST    PAUL    BEFORE    HIS    FIRST    EPISTLE 
TO    THE    THESSALONIANS 

St  Paul  was  born  probably  in  the  first  decade  of  the 
first  century  of  our  era.  He  is  spoken  of  as  a  young 
man  veavla?  (Acts  vii.  58)  at  the  stoning  of  St 
Stephen  about  the  year  32-35,  he  was  therefore  at  that 
time  between  twenty  and  thirty  years  of  age.  He 
calls  himself  an  old  man  'n-pea-IBvTm  in  the  epistle  to 
Philemon  which  was  written  about  the  year  62,  and 
this  must  mean  that  he  was  nearly  sixty  years  old. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  49 

He  went  to  Jerusalem  when  he  was  about  twelve 
years  old,  or  perhaps  even  at  an  earlier  age,  if  we  take 
rigorously  what  he  says  (Acts  xxii.  3) :  "I  was  brought 
up  apareOpajUL/uLevog  in  this  city  [Jerusalem],"  and  so 
he  might  have  seen  and  listened  to  Christ.  But  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  known  Him.  Nowhere  in  his 
epistles  does  he  allude  to  a  knowledge  de  visu.  When 
he  says  (1  Cor.  ix.  1) :  "  Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  ?  "  or 
(2  Cor.  V.  16),  "  although  we  have  known  Jesus  Christ 
according  to  the  flesh,"  he  speaks  of  a  vision  of  the 
Risen  Christ. 

Paul  was  in  Jerusalem  when  St  Stephen  the  deacon 
was  accused  of  blasphemy  against  Moses  and  God. 
He  took  part  in  the  condemnation,  and  the  witnesses 
at  the  stoning  laid  their  garments  at  his  feet.  After 
this  he  became  one  of  the  most  violent  persecutors  of 
the  Church ;  he  used  to  drag  men  and  women  from 
their  homes  and  cast  them  into  prison  (Acts  ix.  2). 
Breathing  death  and  menaces  against  the  disciples  he 
obtained  letters  from  the  High  Priest  to  the  syna- 
gogues of  Damascus  ordering  him  if  he  found  any 
partisans  of  the  new  religion  in  that  city  to  bring  them 
to  Jerusalem  in  chains  (Acts  ix.  1).  But  as  he  drew 
near  to  Damascus  a  bright  light  from  heaven  fell  upon 
him,  and  he  heard  a  voice  saying :  "  Saul,  Saul,  why 
dost  thou  persecute  Me  ? "  He  answered  :  "  Lord, 
who  art  thou?"  and  the  voice  said:  "I  am  Jesus, 
whom  thou  dost  persecute."  Finding  that  he  was 
struck  blind,  and  receiving  an  order  to  enter  the  city, 
he  obeyed.  After  three  days,  Ananias  was  sent  by 
God  to  impose  hands  upon  Paul,  the  latter  recovered 
his  sight  and  was  baptised.  He  remained  some  time 
in  Damascus  with  the  brethren,  and  preached  in  the 
synagogues  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  Then 
he  went  to  Arabia  (Gal.  i.  17),  probably  to  Hauran 


50  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

east  of  Damascus.  Next  he  went  back  to  Antioch, 
and  being  driven  out  by  the  Jews  he  went  three  years 
after  his  conversion  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter ;  he 
stayed  there  fifteen  days,  and  saw  no  apostle  except 
Peter  and  James  (Gal.  i.  18).  He  attempted  to  preach 
to  the  hellenist  Jews,  but  they  sought  to  kill  him 
(Acts  ix.  29).  The  brethren  took  him  to  Cesarea 
and  obliged  him  to  sail  away  to  Tarsus.  From  that 
city  he  made  missionary  journeys  through  Syria  and 
Cilicia  (Gal.  i.  21).  Barnabas  went  to  find  him  in 
Tarsus,  and  took  him  to  Antioch,  where  they  stayed 
a  whole  year  and  instructed  a  great  multitude 
(Acts  xi.  25).  He  and  Barnabas  were  sent  to  Jerusalem 
to  take  to  the  brethren  there  some  money  collected 
in  Antioch  {ib.  29)  [44  after  Christ].  They  returned 
to  Antioch,  and  were  sent  from  there  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  pagans  (xiii.  2). 
The  two  apostles  first  evangelised  Cyprus,  where  they 
made  a  convert  of  the  proconsul  Sergius  Paulus,  and 
then  they  landed  in  Pamphylia.  Without  stopping 
at  Perge,  they  went  on  to  Antioch  in  Pisidia  and 
founded  a  Christian  community  there.  Being  driven 
from  that  town,  they  went  to  Iconium,  Lystra,  and 
Derbe,  constantly  pursued  by  the  hatred  of  the  Jews. 
Having  founded  churches  in  all  these  places,  they  went 
back  again  the  way  they  had  come,  fortifying  and 
consoling  the  brethren  and  ordaining  priests  in  every 
church  (Acts  xiv.  22).  When  they  were  back  again 
in  Antioch,  they  made  a  report  to  the  Church  there 
that  God  had  opened  to  the  pagans  the  gate  of  the 
faith  [ib.  26).  But  some  of  the  disciples  who  came 
from  Jerusalem  taught  that  without  circumcision  it 
was  impossible  to  be  saved.  Thereupon  arose  a  great 
discussion,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  sent  to 
Jerusalem  to  confer  with  the  apostles  on  the  subject 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  51 

(Acts  XV.  2).  A  special  revelation  came  to  Paul  to 
make  him  undertake  this  journey  (Gal.  ii.  2).  After 
private  interviews  with  the  apostles  Peter,  James,  and 
John,  and  after  public  deliberations,  it  was  decided 
that  converts  from  paganism  were  not  to  be  obUged 
to  keep  the  law  of  Moses  (Acts  xv.  6  and  Gal.  ii.  2). 
Paul  returned  to  Antioch,  and  this  is  probably  the 
time  when  his  dispute  with  Peter  took  place  (Gal.  ii. 
14).  Then  he  went  with  Silas  into  Asia  Minor, 
visited  Derbe  and  Lystra  whence  he  took  Timothy 
to  be  his  fellow-labourer,  and  traversed  Phrygia  and 
Galatia  (Acts  xv.).  We  shall  have  to  see  later  on 
what  this  region  really  is.  Being  prevented  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  from  preaching  in  the  province  of  Asia, 
they  attempted  to  enter  Bithynia  from  Mysia,  but 
were  again  prevented  by  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  Then 
they  passed  through  Mysia  and  reached  Troas.  It 
was  probably  there  that  Luke  joined  them.  And 
Paul  was  admonished  in  a  vision  to  cross  the  sea  to 
preach  in  Macedonia  (Acts  xvi.  6). 

They  landed  at  Neapolis,  and  went  on  to  Philippi, 
where  they  preached  Jesus  in  the  synagogue  of  the 
Jews.  In  consequence  of  a  popular  tumult  they  were 
beaten  with  rods  and  cast  into  prison.  Then  being 
set  at  liberty,  they  went  to  Thessalonica  through 
Amphipolis  and  Apollonia.  Another  tumult  forced 
them  to  leave  this  city  where  they  had  made  numerous 
converts  among  the  pagans,  and  they  went  on  to 
Berea  where  Silas  and  Timothy  remained.  Paul 
went  alone  to  Athens,  Timothy  went  to  him,  but  was 
sent  back  again  to  Thessalonica.  Paul  remaining 
alone  in  Athens  preached  in  the  Areopagus  with  no 
great  success.  He  went  on  to  Corinth  (Acts  xvi.  18). 
There  he  found  Aquila  and  his  wife  Priscilla,  who 
were  of  the  same   trade   as   himself,  he   dwelt  and 


52  HISTORY  OF   THE   BOOKS 

worked  with  them  (Acts  xviii.  2).  Silas  and  Timothy 
came  to  him  from  Macedonia  {ib.  5),  and  it  was  the 
news  that  they  brought  to  him  from  Thessalonica 
that  made  him  write  his  first  epistle  to  the  Christians 
there.     We  shall  speak  of  it  further  on. 


5.    VARIOUS    POINTS   CONCERNING    THE    EPISTLES 

In  order  to  understand  that  part  of  the  life  of  St 
Paul  in  which  his  epistles  were  composed,  we  have 
various  important  points  to  consider.  And  the  first 
one  is  whether  he  was  from  the  very  beginning  fully 
equipped  with  the  whole  body  of  doctrines  that  he 
has  taught,  or  whether  he  acquired  them  gradually 
through  meditation  and  through  his  religious  ex- 
perience. 

It  would  be  unprofitable  to  make  conjectures  as  to 
the  interior  travail  that  must  have  taken  place  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Apostle  immediately  after  his  conversion, 
or  during  the  three  years  that  he  spent  in  Arabia. 
We  must  confine  ourselves  to  the  consideration  of 
the  more  solid  materials  that  we  find  in  his  writings. 
Weiss  (Lehrbuch  der  Einl.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  163) 
and  Sabatier  (L'Apotre  Paul,  p.  100)  maintain  that 
in  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  the  earliest  of 
his  epistles,  there  is  no  trace  of  the  dogmatic  teaching 
which  constitutes  the  properly  so  called  pauline 
gospel.  "  The  great  pauline  antithesis  between  Faith 
and  Law  does  not,"  says  Sabatier,  "  find  any  place  in 
these  two  epistles,  and  consequently  the  doctrine  of 
Justification  is  put  forward  in  them  in  a  more  vague 
and  general  form.  .  .  .  The  same  is  true  of  the 
doctrine  of  Redemption,  which  we  find  in  some  con- 
nection with  the  death  of  Christ,  but  only  a  loose 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  53 

connection.  The  Resurrection  and  death  of  Christ 
are  placed  side  by  side,  but  their  internal  logical  unity 
and  their  moral  significance  in  the  work  of  Redemp- 
tion are  not  brought  out."  "  The  primitive  type 
of  Paul's  doctrine  is  quite  simple.  It  is  only  elemen- 
tarily organised.  The  ideas  in  it  are  always  general, 
and  their  logical  connection  is  often  scarcely  per- 
ceptible. They  can  all  be  reduced  to  two :  the 
gospel  message  and  the  parousia.  We  shall  see  true 
paulinism  evolved  from  them  by  internal  logical 
pressure,  and  by  the  external  pressure  of  the  opposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  judaisers."  According  there- 
fore to  these  historians,  the  properly  so  called  pauline 
teaching  was  still  latent  and  undeveloped  at  the  time 
when  he  wrote  to  the  Thessalonians.  Now,  what 
St  Paul  himself  calls  his  gospel  is :  justification  by 
faith,  and  the  call  to  salvation  for  all  men  without  dis- 
tinction of  Jew  or  Gentile,  and  without  the  obligation 
of  keeping  the  Law  of  Moses.  Can  anyone  maintain 
that  he  did  not  profess  these  doctrines  at  that  time, 
when  we  know  that  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians 
were  written  after  the  Council  in  Jerusalem  ?  after 
the  dispute  with  Peter  in  Antioch  ?  that  they  were 
written  from  Corinth  where,  as  we  know  from  (1  Cor. 
ii.  2),  he  had  taught  Christ  and  Christ  crucified  ? 
Besides  he  had  already  preached  to  the  Galatians 
what  he  calls  his  gospel,  and  perhaps  had  written  to 
them  the  epistle  in  which  it  is  admitted  that  the 
essence  of  his  doctrine  is  contained. 

Other  writers  have  gone  so  far  beyond  this  as  to 
suppose  that  the  teaching  of  St  Paul  underwent  so 
great  a  development  as  to  amount  to  a  change ;  they 
distinguish  four  periods  in  which  by  degrees  he  cast 
off  Jewish  materialistic  ideas,  and  adopted  a  more 
spiritual  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  and  of  the  end 


54  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

of  the  world    (Charles   "  Hebr.   Jewish  and  Christ. 
Eschatology,"  p.  377). 

What  must  be  admitted  is  that  the  Apostle  did, 
as  opportunities  occurred,  make  more  and  more 
definite  his  teaching  with  regard  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  parousia  of  Christ,  as  to  the  time  of  the  Second 
Coming,  as  to  the  Resurrection,  as  to  the  nature  of 
risen  bodies,  and  finally  as  to  the  last  consummation 
in  God's  plan.  He  presents  these  doctrines  in  diverse 
aspects,  but  not  in  aspects  that  exclude  one  another. 
One  need  only  compare  e.g.  1  Cor.  xv.  28  with 
Col.  i.  16  and  Eph.  i.  10,  in  the  two  latter  epistles 
he  proclaims  the  universal  reign  of  Christ,  in  the  first 
all  things  must  have  their  end  in  God,  the  Son 
Himself  will  be  subject  to  God  in  order  that  God 
may  be  all  in  all.  There  are  degrees  in  the  explana- 
tion of  the  doctrine,  but  there  is  no  change  of  doctrine. 
At  most  might  one  suppose  that  in  the  earlier  epistles 
St  Paul  expected  to  be  living  when  the  parousia  took 
place  (Thess.  i.  4,  15),  whereas  later  on  (Philip  i.  21 ; 
2  Tim.  iv.  6)  he  had  given  up  that  hope.  This  is  a 
mere  modification  in  details  which  in  no  way  affects 
the  substance  of  the  doctrine,  and  we  shall  see  when 
we  come  to  the  study  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  that  he  spoke  in  general  terms,  and 
had  no  intention  of  teaching  that  he  would  be  alive 
at  the  time  of  the  parousia  of  Christ.  Besides  it  is 
not  very  clear  from  the  passages  that  are  quoted 
that  St  Paul  believed  towards  the  end  of  his  life  that 
he  would  not  be  alive  at  the  Lord's  Coming.  We 
shall  have  to  examine  these  passages  more  fully  later 
on.  Lastly  it  is  well  to  remember  that  all  the 
epistles  that  we  possess,  from  the  earliest  to  the 
latest,  were  written  within  the  space  of  seven 
years.       That    is    a    period    that    scarcely    affords 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  55 

room     for      any     great     evolution     in     a     man's 
thoughts. 

What  we  gather  from  the  facts  and  the  texts  may 
be  stated  as  follows.  St  Paul  had  a  meditative  and 
speculative  mind,  fond  of  resting  his  doctrines  on 
general  principles.  His  conversion,  which  im- 
mediately brought  about  an  interior  enlightenment 
of  his  soul  together  with  the  feeling  of  his  being  / 
justified  in  God's  eyes,  became  for  him  the  starting 
point  of  his  doctrine  and  of  his  gospel.  Therefore, 
when  after  his  retirement  of  three  years  in  Arabia 
he  began  to  preach  Christ,  he  was  in  full  possession 
of  his  whole  doctrine.  His  discourses  in  Acts  and 
his  early  epistles  prove  it.  Yet,  being  above  all 
things  a  missionary,  and  aiming  rather  at  bringing 
souls  to  Christ  than  at  speculating  in  general,  he  did 
not  attempt  to  reach  precision  on  certain  points  of 
doctrine  until  he  had  to  find  an  answer  to  errors 
that  tended  to  destroy  the  gospel.  At  the  same 
time  he  made  use  of  dialetics  to  establish  his  teaching.  *^ 

This  elaboration  of  doctrine  is  very  manifest  in  the 
epistles.  It  was  by  occasion  of  the  attacks  of  the 
judaisers  that  he  came  to  define  his  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  and  the  abrogation  of  the  mosaic  law  ; 
then  by  logical  consequence  he  reached  the  redeeming 
value  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  finally  the  idea  of 
the  grace  and  action  of  God.  This  last  idea  is  the 
fundamental  idea  of  the  epistles  that  he  wrote  in 
captivity,  in  which  in  opposition  to  the  speculations 
of  a  gnostic  Judaism  he  establishes  the  true  state  of 
things :  God  in  the  highest  place,  and  Christ  the 
mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  first  cause  and 
last  end  of  all  things.  There  is  therefore  a  develop- 
ment in  St  Paul's  teaching,  but  it  is  in  the  dialectical 
explanation  more  than  in  the  thought. 


56  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Another  interesting  question  is  whether  he  wrote 
other  epistles  besides  those  that  we  now  possess.  No 
doubt  he  did,  in  fact  we  know  for  certain  that  he  did. 
He  refers  (1  Cor.  v.  9)  to  a  former  letter  to  which  he 
mentions  (vii.  i)  that  they  had  sent  an  answer.  In 
the  fourth  century  the  Church  at  Edessa  possessed 
a  letter  from  the  Corinthians  to  St  Paul  and  his 
answer  to  it ;  the  Church  of  Armenia  possessed  them 
also,  and  a  Latin  version  of  them  has  recently  been 
discovered  and  published.  This  correspondence  was 
no  doubt  thought  to  be  canonical,  at  least  by  the 
Syrian  and  Armenian  Churches,  but  it  is  quite  cer- 
tainly apocryphal  and  must  belong  to  the  middle  of 
the  second  century.  They  are  not  the  letters  referred 
to  by  St  Paul. 

Probably  there  was  an  intermediary  letter  between 
the  first  and  second  to  the  Corinthians  (2  Cor.  vii.  8.) 
Did  it  consist  of  the  four  last  chapters  of  2  Cor.  ? 
That  is  a  question  that  we  must  answer  later  on. 
The  letter  to  the  Laodiceans  is  probably  the  one  to 
the  Ephesians  which  is  a  circular  letter.  The  letter 
to  the  Laodiceans  which  is  mentioned  in  several 
documents  is  apocryphal.  The  canon  of  Muratori 
catalogues  as  apocryphal  two  letters  of  St  Paul,  one 
to  the  Laodiceans  and  one  to  the  Alexandrians. 
Some  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate — the  Fuldensis — have  a 
Latin  text  of  an  epistle  to  the  Laodiceans ;  it  is  a 
forgery,  and  so  is  the  celebrated  correspondence 
between  Paul  and  Seneca. 

Finally  let  us  say  a  word  as  to  the  general  form  of 
the  pauline  epistles  and  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  written.  They  have,  with  few  exceptions, 
a  stereotyped  form.  They  begin  with  a  preamble, 
giving  the  name  of  the  writer  and  the  name  of  those 
to  whom  he  is  writing :  "  Paul  the  Apostle  of  Jesus 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  57 

Christ  to  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth," 
that  is  the  formula  that  was  customary  in  ancient 
times.  Sometimes  the  address  is  quite  long  as  in 
Rom.  i.  1-7.  The  formula  of  salutation  varies  a  good 
deal  according  to  the  position  of  the  persons  addressed, 
in  one  epistle  (Gal.)  it  is  omitted,  sometimes  it  is 
quite  long  as  in  Eph.  i.  3-14  and  Col.  i.  3-13.  St 
Paul  sometimes  joins  the  name  of  one  or  more  of  his 
companions  to  his  own :  Silvanus  and  Sosthenes  1  Cor., 
Timothy,  2  Cor.,  Philip.,  Col. ;  Silvanus  and  Timothy, 
1  and  2  Thess.  It  was  not  always  the  name  of  the 
secretary,  though  that  was  sometimes  the  case,  it  was 
some  companion  that  the  Apostle  wished  to  honour 
by  associating  him  with  the  composition  of  the 
epistle.  The  writer  speaks  in  the  first  person  singular 
or  plural  whether  he  writes  in  his  own  name  alone  or 
not.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  St  Paul's  name 
appears  alone  in  the  beginning,  yet  he  writes  in  the 
plural  in  places  (i.  5  and  ii.  2  and  viii.  23).  In  the 
epistle  to  the  Colossians  where  Timothy's  name 
appears  also,  he  writes  in  the  plural  and  also  in  the 
singular  (i.  24-25). 

After  this  comes  the  body  of  the  letter,  which 
divides  itself  naturally  into  two  parts ;  the  one 
doctrinal,  the  other  moral.  At  the  end  comes  a  con- 
clusion in  which  St  Paul  sends  greetings  from  himself 
and  from  those  who  are  with  him  (Rom.  xvi.  3-23 ; 
Col.  iv.  10-18).  As  a  rule  he  dictated,  this  was  the 
custom  in  ancient  times ;  when  he  wrote  himself,  he 
took  care  to  say  so  (Gal.  vi.  11 ;  Philemon  19). 
Once  the  name  of  the  secretary  is  given  (Rom.  xvi. 
22).  When  he  had  finished  dictating,  St  Paul  used 
to  write  a  few  words  such  as  :  "  The  grace  of  Jesus 
Christ  be  with  you  "  and  his  signature,  saying  that  he 
wrote  it  with  his  own  hand  (1  Cor.  xvi.  21 ;  Col.  iv. 


58  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

18)  in  order  that  his  readers  might  know  his  hand- 
writing (2  Thess.  iii.  17). 


6.    LANGUAGE    OF    ST    PAUL 

The  remarks  that  we  have  already  made  on  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  are  true  in  general 
of  the  epistles  of  St  Paul,  we  need  not  repeat  them, 
but  we  have  to  consider  what  there  is  special  and 
characteristic  in  these  thirteen  epistles  which  in  respect 
of  language  are  identical.  We  set  aside  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  which  has  a  language  of  its  own. 
We  have  to  study  St  Paul's  style  and  vocabulary. 

No  other  New  Testament  writer  except  St  Luke 
has  so  great  a  vocabulary  as  St  Paul.  There  are 
31,457  words  in  his  epistles,  of  these  2478  are  separate 
^  and  distinct  words,  1662  are  common  to  him  and  to 
other  New  Testament  writers,  and  816  are  found  in 
him  alone  in  the  New  Testament,  and  of  these  155 
are  found  for  the  first  time  in  his  epistles.  Must  we 
conclude  that  he  coined  them  ?  We  can  admit  that 
he  did  coin  some,  but  not  most  of  them.  As  we  have 
already  said,  we  do  not  know  all  the  words  either  of 
the  literary  or  of  the  conversational  language  of  the 
time.  We  may  therefore  be  certain  that  some  of 
these  words  were  in  common  use,  especially  as  we 
find  them  in  writers  of  a  date  only  a  little  later  than 
St  Paul's ;  others  are  derived  from  classical  words  or 
are  compounds,  and  need  not  therefore  be  con- 
sidered purely  pauline.  There  remain  then  the  words 
that  have  a  specific  Christian  meaning,  or  that  cor- 
respond to  some  particular  aspect  of  pauline  doctrine, 

such  as  :  avaKalvMcri?,  ayvort]?,  acpOopla,  eSpaioo/na,  eirnroOtjcri?, 
erepoSiSaa-KaXeoD,   OeoSiSaKTog,    Treia-fiovr'],   (rv^^op(pi^(t),    u^^^]Xo- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  59 

(f)pov£co,  (ppevaTTcxTao),  etc.,  altogether  about  40  words. 
There  are  also  words  and  expressions  which  he  alone 
of  the  New  Testament  writers  makes  use  of,  or  to 
which  he  has  attached  a  special  meaning  of  his  own  : 

aya6w(Tvvt],  §iKaico<Ti9f  KaTaWay/},  juea-iri]^,  avOpwirog  \|/-u^t/co9, 
TTvevjULariKo?,  ktio-i?,  Kamj,  etc.  Other  words  that  occur 
in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  have  a  new  or 
a   wider  meaning   in   St   Paul :   SiKaLovaOai,   SiKaioavvr], 

yapLo-ixa,    7r/(TTi9,    Trvev/xa,    euSvecrOai,    eKSveaOai,   KaXeoo,   /cAj^to?, 

airoXvTpoKn?,  oiKoSofxr'j,  etc.  Some  expressions  are  also 
peculiar  to  him :  to  put  off  the  old  man,  I  am  buried 
with  Christ,  I  live  with  Chiist,  I  am  C7mcified  with 
Christ,  etc. 

Grammatically  St  Paul  is  generally  correct,  the 
licences  that  we  see  in  his  writings  were  conversational 
and  were  permitted  in  his  time.  The  Greek  language 
was  then  decadent.  Ordinary  speech  was  attic,  but 
did  not  exclude  the  forms  of  other  dialects  ;  and  being 
spoken  by  people  of  barbaric  origin,  it  lost  something 
of  its  primitive  regularity.  Therefore  it  is  quite  likely 
that  all  the  irregularities  that  we  notice  in  St  Paul 
were  in  common  use  in  conversation,  grammatically 
we  may  say  that  they  are  numerous,  and  rhetorically 
much  more  so.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  St 
Paul  had  made  any  serious  literary  studies,  though  I 
know  that  the  opposite  view  is  held  by  some.  His 
grammar  is  the  ordinary  grammar  ;  as  for  rhetoric,  he 
simply  does  not  know  it.  As  an  instance  we  may 
quote  Rom.  viii.  35  and  still  more  1  Cor.  xiii.  where 
the  thought  is  as  beautiful  as  possible,  and  the  de- 
velopment of  it  in  its  various  aspects  is  shown  with 
the  most  wonderful  fertility ;  it  is  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  and  yet,  if 
we  examine  the  construction  of  the  sentences,  we  find 
that  the   classical  character   is   altogether   wanting ; 


60  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

what  prevails  in  it  is  Hebrew  parallelism,  so  much  so 
that  we  might  almost  ask  whether  this  is  not  one  of 
those  hymns  that  the  Apostle  claims  (1  Cor.  xiv.  18) 
to  be  able  to  sing. 

Only  one  real  solecism  has  been  noticed  in  St  Paul 

(Philip,    ii.    1),  ei  T<9  a-Tr\ay)(ya  KOt  oiKTipfxai,  it  should    be 

Tim  a-TrXdy^m.  Can  it  have  been  customary  to  use 
this  neutral  plural  as  a  feminine  singular  ?  How  else 
does  he  come  to  use  it  so  ?  Other  passages  might  be 
quoted  where  he  seems  to  have  violated  the  rules  of 
grammar,  but  in  these  cases  it  is  possible  to  offer  some 
explanation  (2  Cor.  viii.  23) :  e'lre  vTrep  Tlrou,  KoivMvog, 

e/xo?  Koi  ei?  v/na?  arvvepyo?  in  place  of  KOivwvov  and  (rvvepyov. 

Notice  also  the  change  of  form :  eire  aSe\(poi  in  place 

of  eire  aSeXipwv. 

After  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  come  to  some 
grammatical  peculiarities  in  the  epistles.  St  Paul 
leaves  out  the  article  in  the  expressions  Kara  a-dpKa,  iv 

J^piCTTM,    €V     ■)(pi(TT(io    ^ItjCTOV,    €V     Ku^tO),    bcforC     OVpaVO^,    KOCTflO?, 

Oeo^,  xjoto-To?.  He  often  puts  the  neuter  article  to 
before  whole  propositions  (Rom.  xiv.  13) :  rovro  Kplmre 

fxdWov  TO  iJ.r]   TiOevai  irpoa-KOixfia  tw  aS€X(p(p  (^cf.  Rom.  xiii. 

9  ;  Gal.  v.  14).  He  alone  makes  eyaai/roy  stand  for  efxov 
(1  Cor.  X.  33),  and  inserts  the  pronouns  ^i^^Siv  and  vfxMv 
between  the  noun  and  the  article  (Rom.  xvi.  19) :  ^ 
vjULwv  viraKon  (1  Cor.  ix.  12  ;  2  Cor.  i.  6) ;  he  places  tovto 
before  otl  or  'iva  which  is  a  pleonasm  (Rom.  ii.  3) : 

Xoy'iCr}  ^e  tovto   .   .    .    otl  cv  eKCpev^rj ;  he  joinS  propositions 

by  repeating  a  relative  pronoun  though  it  refers  to 
different  nouns  (Rom.  ix.  4) :  oitiv€9  elaiv  'larpaeXiTai  wv 

rj  vloOea-ia   .   .   .   wv  ol  iraTepe?  Kal  e^  &v  6  yj)i<jTO<s  (^cf.   1  Cor. 

ii.  7) ;  he  uses  the  neuter  6  in  the  sense  of  as  regards 
that  which  (Rom.  vi.  10) :  o  ^e  "Q,  "Q  tw  Oew  ;  he  often 
joins  genitives  when  the  one  depends  upon  the  other 
(2   Cor.   iv.    4)  :  t6v  (pomaixov  roO  evavyeXlov  t^9  So^r]?  tou 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  61 

Xpicrrov ;  he  uses  the  genitive  with  a-viuiuLop<po9  in  place 
of  the  dative  (Rom.  viii.  29) ;  he  uses  Kavxaofxai  with 
the  dative  of  the  person  and  the  accusative  of  the 
thing  with  the  usual  preposition ;  he  puts  axo  after 
^eJyft)  in  place  of  putting  an  accusative  (1  Cor.  x.  14), 
evxapia-rew  with  an  accusative  (2  Cor.  i.  11)  in  place  of 
€v,  the  middle  in  place  of  the  active  (2  Cor.  xi.  2),  Iva 
with  the  indicative  in  place  of  the  subjunctive  or  the 
optative  (1  Cor.  iv.  6 ;  Gal.  xiv.  17) ;  sometimes  he 
leaves  out  av  (2  Cor.  xi.  4) ;  sometimes  he  puts  a  per- 
missive meaning  into  the  imperative  (1  Cor.  vii.  15) 
in  which  case  if  the  sentence  were  completed  it  would 
be  far  more  regular  but  far  less  vivid.  It  would  be 
worth  while  to  make  a  study  of  the  many  meanings 
such  as  but,  though  therefore  that  he  puts  into  yap. 
And  he  makes  use  of  apa  as  many  times  as  all  the 
other  New  Testament  writers  put  together,  often 
adding  ovv  to  it ;  the  two  together  are  never  found 
elsewhere  either  in  the  New  Testament  or  in  profane 
writers,  and  apa  should  never  appear  at  the  beginning 
of  a  sentence  ;  apa  ovv  together  occur  twelve  times  in 
the  epistles  by  way  of  introducing  the  conclusion  of 
an  argument. 

Both  in  the  form  and  in  the  connection  of  sentences 
there  are  peculiarities  that  deserve  to  be  noticed.  He 
often  omits  the  copula  Ka\  in  enumerations  (Rom.  xii. 
9),  and  often  makes  no  connection  between  pro- 
positions. He  makes  frequent  use  of  parentheses 
and  digressions  (Rom.  i.  3-13  and  xiv.  6 ;  vii.  1 ; 
2  Cor.  V.  7;  ix.  9-10;  x.  4 ;  vi.  2 ;  Gal.  ii.  6),  and 
some  parentheses  are  so  long  that  they  become  digres- 
sions. Take  for  example  Rom.  ii.  12-16,  in  the  first 
of  those  verses  he  lays  down  a  principle  that  those 
who  sin  without  the  law  shall  perish  without  the  law, 
and  that  those  who  sin  against  the  law  shall  be  judged 


62  HISTORY   OF  THE   BOOKS 

by  the  law.  The  verbs  are  in  the  future  tense.  He 
proves  the  principle  in  the  three  following  verses  with 
the  verbs  in  the  present  tense,  verse  13  is  essential, 
14  and  15  are  developments,  16  goes  back  to  12  and 
to  the  future  tense.  Compare  1  Cor.  viii.  1-3  and 
XV.  9-10.  Anacoluthons  are  frequent.  They  are 
caused  by  the  intensity  or  rapidity  of  thought  making 
the  writer  lose  sight  of  how  he  began  a  sentence,  so 
that  he  leaves  it  grammatically  incomplete.  A  di- 
gression or  a  long  parenthesis  is  very  apt  to  produce 
this  defect.  Only  good  writers  are  able  to  avoid 
anacoluthons,  because  the  greatest  attention  is  re- 
quired if  one  is  never  to  be  guilty  in  this  way.  They 
are  to  be  found  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament. 
They  are  very  frequent  in  the  epistles  of  St  Paul,  but 
not  at  all  frequent  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
The   following   examples   may    usefully   be    quoted 

(1  Cor.  xi.  28  ;    Gal.  ii.  6)  : — cnro  Se  rwv  Sokovvtmv  eival  Ti 

remains  suspended  on  account  of  the  parenthesis,  and 
when  St  Paul  comes  back  to  what  he  began  with, 
he  alters  the  construction :  e/xot  yap  ol  SoKovvre?  ouSeu 
7rpo9ave6evTo.  Compare  Rom.  ii.  17  ;  ix.  22  ;  xvi.  25  ; 
2  Cor.  vi.  5  ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  14  ;  iii.  37  ;  Rom.  i.  12  ;  ii.  8  ; 
1  Cor.  xiv.  1,  etc.,  in  fact  the  attentive  reader  will  find 
anacoluthons  in  every  chapter. 

The  pauline  epistles  are  discourses  rather  than 
letters,  they  were  dictated  and  apparently  were  not 
revised  in  any  way.  Most  of  them  are  polemic,  and 
in  any  case  the  Apostle  always  wrote  under  the  in- 
fluence of  vivid  sentiment  which  made  him  aim  at 
rapidity,  but  in  this  effort  he  had  recourse  to  ellipses 
and  to  pleonasms  which  in  reality  produce  delay. 
The  ellipses  are  frequent,  ea-rlv  is  often  omitted 
especially  in  exclamations  and  interrogations  (Rom. 
iii.  1 ;  viii.  27,  31 ;  xi.  33 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  16),  he  even  sup- 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  63 

presses  eo-^ceV  which  is  very  seldom  the  case  in  other 
New  Testament  writers  or  in  profane  authors  (2  Cor. 
xi.  6 ;  Phihp.  iii.  25).  The  passage  in  Rom.  xii,  6  is 
a  remarkable  example  of  ellipsis  and  anacoluthon. 
The  pleonasms  are  principally  repetitions,  and  they 
seem  to  be  deliberately  chosen  for  the  sake  of  their 
rhetorical  effect :  koivov  is  repeated  (Rom.  xiv.  14),  ttou 
(1  Cor.  i.  20),  aXXa  (1  Cor.  vii.  11),  Trivre^  (1  Cor.  x.  1). 
KivSwoi?  is  repeated  six  times  in  the  famous  passage 
2  Cor.  xi.  26.  Nor  must  we  omit  to  mention  his 
use  of  the  constructio  prcegnans  in  which  the  pro- 
position is  attached  to  a  verb  which  requires  another 
verb  to  supplement  it  (Rom.  viii.  21).  This  con- 
struction occurs  fairly  frequently.  He  also,  like  other 
Jewish  writers,  is  fond  of  paronomases  and  parallelisms. 
Paronomasis   is  a  combination   of  words  of  similar 

sound  (Rom.  i.  29-31)  :  iropvela — Trovijpia,  (pOovou — (povov, 
a<Tuu6TOV9 — a(rvv6erov?,BJ\3.  1  Cor.  ii.  13  ei^  SiSaKTOi?  Trveujuaro? 
TTveviJiariKoU,  iruev/nariKa  (TvyKplvovTeg^  and  2  Cor.  ix.  8  ev 
ttuvt).  iravTore  iracrav  avrapKeiav.  There  are  also  plays 
upon  words  (Rom.  i.  20)  :  to.  aopara  avrov  KaOoparai, 
(Phil.  iii.  2  ;    2  Cor.  v.  4)  ecj)   w  ov   BeXoixev  cK^vvaaQat  ctXX' 

eirev^va-aa-Qai.  The  parallelism  of  phrases  is  a  form  of 
Hebrew  poetry,  and  is  frequent  in  St  Paul — Rom. 
ix.  2: 

"  I  have  great  sorrow 
And  continual  grief  in  my  heart." 

Rom.  iv.  25 : 

"  He  hath  been  delivered  up  for  our  sins 
And  raised  from  the  dead  for  our  justification." 

1  Cor.  xii.  26: 

"  If  one  member  suffers  all  the  other  members  suffer  with  it. 
If  one  member  is  honoured  all  the  other  members  rejoice  with 
it." 

There  is  very  often  an  element  of  antithesis  in  his 


64  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

dialectics  (1  Cor.  vii.  29;  2  Cor.  iv.  8).  Antithesis 
seems  to  have  been  his  favourite  figure  of  speech. 
Every  idea  suggested  to  him  the  thought  of  its 
opposite  :  the  flesh  made  him  think  of  the  spirit,  faith 
of  the  law,  woi^ks  of  grace,  man  of  God.  We  need 
not  multiply  instances,  they  might  be  quoted  without 
number,  since  they  occur  so  frequently.  But  we 
must  not  omit  St  Paul's  habit  of  linking  together 
sentences  by  making  the  last  word  of  one  furnish  the 
subject  of  the  next  (Rom.  i.  1-7  and  iii.  22). 

It  is  perhaps  time  for  us  now,  that  we  have  studied 
the  details,  to  say  something  in  a  more  general  sense 
as  to  the  literary  style  of  these  Epistles.  No  com- 
parison is  possible  between  it  and  the  style  of  classical 
writers  like  Demosthenes  or  Isocrates,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  in  the  form  and  structure  of  sentences 
the  two  are  entirely  different.  We  must  not  forget 
that  St  Paul  is  not  a  Greek  but  a  Jew,  his  mentality 
is  oriental,  his  education  was  rabbinical ;  and  all  this 
has  left  its  mark  upon  his  style.  It  is  very  true  of 
him  that  "  the  style  is  the  man,"  it  displays  all  the 
ardour  of  his  temperament,  the  dramatic  restlessness 
of  his  imagination,  his  power  of  realising  ideas,  the 
closeness  of  his  reasoning,  the  warmth  and  tenderness 
of  his  heart,  the  delicacy  of  his  feeling,  the  strength 
of  his  will,  the  vivacity  of  his  character,  the  subtlety 
of  his  spirit,  and  hence  arise  all  those  characteristic 
peculiarities  that  make  his  style  so  vivid.  When  you 
read  him,  you  can  see  him  before  you,  and  hear  him 
speaking.  In  a  word,  if  literary  beauty  consists 
above  all  things  in  the  grandeur  of  ideas,  and  in 
creative  and  intensely  living  forms  of  expression,  then 
St  Paul  is  indeed  a  great  writer,  so  great  that  we 
know  not  anyone  worthy  to  be  compared  to  him. 
He   never  pays   as   much   attention   to  style  as  to 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  65 

thought  or  doctrine,  his  language  being  dictated,  had 
to  follow  his  thoughts  in  all  their  ramifications  ;  and 
if  the  unfolding  of  them  goes  in  any  order,  it  is  as 
a  rule  not  the  logical  order  to  which  we  are  accus- 
tomed. He  speaks  sometimes  with  ease,  sometimes 
with  majesty ;  then  some  emotion  will  make  him 
rapid,  or  precipitate,  or  bring  him  to  a  sudden  stop. 
At  other  times  he  speaks  in  lengthy  and  twisted  and 
overloaded  sentences.  He  wants  to  say  all  that  he 
has  in  his  mind,  and  not  to  leave  out  any  one  of  the 
great  thoughts  that  crowd  upon  him  without  any 
order  apparently.  He  endeavours  to  comprise  in 
words  the  vast  horizon  stretched  out  before  his  mind's 
eye,  and  the  whole  of  God's  plan  as  he  sees  it  in 
creation.  Then  every  word  produces  a  fresh  thought, 
or  brings  him  to  a  new  point  of  view,  and  he  wants 
to  leave  nothing  unexpressed,  consequently  he  is  ever 
making  new  beginnings  in  his  sentences.  This  is 
what  brings  about  those  interminable  parentheses, 
those  subordinate  sentences  in  which  the  thread  of 
the  principal  thought  becomes  lost,  and  those  irregular 
constructions  where  the  members  of  sentences  are 
roughly  piled  up  like  building  materials  in  place  of 
being  arranged  in  logical  or  grammatical  order. 

St  Paul  is  never  at  a  loss  for  a  word,  he  takes  the 
first  one  that  occurs  to  his  mind  if  only  it  is  ex- 
pressive, and  he  never  hesitates  to  give  it  a  new 
meaning  or  to  put  upon  it  a  shade  of  meaning  of  his 
own.  So  much  so,  that  it  would  not  be  labour  lost 
to  compile  a  list  of  the  various  meanings  that  he  has 
put  upon  some  words  in  common  use,  such  as :  /aw, 
faith,  grace,  spirit,  hody,Jlesh,  mind. 

His  style  is  also  very  variable ;  and  every  epistle, 
though  possessing  the  same  general  characteristics, 
has  its  own  features.     This  is  quite  natural,  because 


66     BOOKS   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT 

St  Paul  was  not  a  writer  but  a  preacher ;  consequently 
he  was  subject  to  momentary  influences,  and  besides 
he  allowed  free  play  to  all  the  impulses  that  came  to 
him  from  the  spirit  of  God.  It  is  impossible  therefore 
to  submit  these  epistles  to  our  ordinary  rules,  or  to 
judge  them  by  the  ordinary  methods  of  criticism ; 
this  will  come  out  more  distinctly  in  the  study  that 
we  are  now  about  to  make  of  each  one  of  them. 


CHAPTER   II 

EPISTLES    TO    THE    THESSALONI ANS 
1.    THE    CHURCH    OF    THESSALONICA 

Thessalonica — now  called  Saloniki — was  founded  in 
315  by  Cassander  a  little  to  the  north  of  the  ancient 
town  of  Thermse.  Situated  on  the  gulf  of  Thermse, 
at  the  foot  an  amphitheatre  of  hills,  on  a  great  high- 
road, it  was  one  of  the  most  important  harbours  of 
continental  Greece,  and  the  chief  town  of  the  second 
district  of  the  Roman  province  of  Macedonia.  Its 
population  was  a  mixture  of  Greeks,  Romans,  and 
Jews  ;  we  are  not  able  to  determine  the  proportion 
of  these  three  elements,  but  we  know  that  the  Greeks 
predominated.  It  was  in  St  Paul's  time  Urbs  liberce 
co7iditio7iis,  a  praetor  resided  there,  and  the  administra- 
tion was  in  the  hands  of  five  or  six  politarchs.  Its 
religion  was  made  up  of  the  worship  of  Greek  and 
Roman  divinities  which  prevailed  generally  in  the 
Roman  world.  The  ancient  Thracian  God  Cabirus 
also  had  his  altars.  The  Jews,  always  attached  to 
the  religion  of  their  fathers  and  impatiently  waiting 
for  the  promised  Messiah,  had  drawn  to  themselves 
the  Greeks  who  are  described  (Acts  xiii.  26  and 
xvii.  4)  as  honouring  or  fearing  God.  The  moral 
condition  of  the  town  must  have  been  what  one 
would  expect  in  a  maritime  and  industrial  town  with 
a  mixed  and  cosmopolitan  population. 

Paul  accompanied  by  Silas  went  to  Thessalonica 
67 


68  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

after  having  been  forced  by  popular  tumult  to  leave 
Philippi,  and  preached  on  three  consecutive  Sabbaths 
in  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews.  The  burden  of  his 
discourses  was  that  according  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  Messiah  had  to  suffer  and  to  rise,  and  that 
Jesus  whom  he  made  known  to  them  was  the  Christ 
(Acts  xvii.  2).  Some  Jews  and  Greeks  believed — or 
according  to  some  MSS.  Greeks  and  proselytes — as 
well  as  many  ladies  of  rank  in  the  city.  The  great 
majority  of  the  new  community  was  originally 
pagan,  in  fact  1  Thess.  i.  9  implies  that  at  one  time 
they  had  all  been  worshippers  of  idols,  and  that  there 
was  not  one  Jew  among  them,  because  the  Jews  are 
spoken  of  (ii.  14)  as  strangers  to  them.  The  Jewish 
converts  were  not  numerous  according  to  Acts  xvii. 
4,  and  may  have  renounced  communion  when  the 
troubles  caused  by  their  fellow-countrymen  arose. 

Paul  taught  this  youthful  church  all  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord,  the  traditions  as  he  says  (2  ii.  2-15), 
and  the  way  in  which  they  had  to  walk  in  order  to 
please  God ;  especially  he  announced  to  them  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  what  it  was,  and  what  was  to  be 
its  consummation  (2  ii.  3-11).  How  long  he  con- 
tinued to  preach  there  is  uncertain.  The  Acts  tell 
us  of  the  three  Sabbaths,  but  do  not  say  how  soon 
the  sedition  caused  by  the  Jews  arose.  Some  con- 
siderable time  would  seem  to  have  elapsed,  for  Paul 
(iv.  16)  refers  to  help  having  twice  been  sent  to  him 
from  Philippi  while  he  was  in  Thessalonica ;  and 
besides  St  Paul  appears  thoroughly  to  understand 
the  mental  state  of  the  converts.  Finally,  the  perfec- 
tion of  their  faith  for  which  he  bestows  praise  upon 
them  (2  i.  3),  and  the  spreading  abroad  of  it  (1  i.  7) 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  a  stay  of  some  length. 
Yet  it  is  possible  that  he  was  there  only  on  those 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  69 

three  Sabbaths  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  for  our  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  the  contrary  supposition  are  not 
quite  conclusive. 

We  cannot  tell  from  documentary  evidence 
whether  there  was  any  organisation  in  this  Christian 
community  when  St  Paul  left  the  city,  but  it  was 
organised  when  he  wrote  these  epistles  (1  v.  12). 
The  presidents  whom  he  recommends  them  to  hold 
in  reverence  and  affection  seem  to  have  met  with 
some  opposition,  from  which  we  might  gather  that 
they  had  not  been  appointed  by  the  apostle  directly. 
He  may  have  nominated  them  after  his  departure,  or 
indirectly  through  Timothy.  They  were  new  to  their 
position,  and  chosen  from  the  body  of  the  community, 
and  probably  had  not  had  time  to  consolidate  their 
authority. 


2.    OCCASION    AND    OBJECT    OF    THE    EPISTLE 

The  Brethren  at  Thessalonica  filled  with  fear  at 
the  sedition  caused  by  the  Jews,  sent  Paul  and  Silas 
to  Berea  (Acts  xvii.  10).  In  that  place  also  the  Jews 
from  Thessalonica  stirred  up  the  people  against  the 
apostles.  Paul  departed,  but  left  there  Silas  and 
Timothy,  the  latter  having  apparently  joined  them 
at  Berea.  Paul  was  accompanied  by  brethren  from 
Berea  on  his  journey  to  Athens,  and  Timothy  re- 
joined him  there.  Being  anxious  to  know  how  the 
Christians  were  faring  at  Thessalonica,  Paul  sent 
Timothy  to  them  (1  iii.  2).  By  the  time  of  Timothy's 
return,  Paul  had  left  Athens  for  Corinth,  so  it  was 
at  Corinth  that  he  received  from  Timothy  and  Silas 
(Acts  xviii.  5)  an  account  of  how  matters  stood  at 
Thessalonica.      The   news    that   they   brought  was 


70  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

good,  as  we  see  from  1  ii.  19,  the  youthful  community 
had  not  forgotten  its  apostle  and  longed  to  see  him 
again  (iii.  6),  persecution  had  not  produced  any  evil 
effects,  the  seed  sown  by  Paul  had  borne  fruit,  the 
Christian  virtues  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity  were  so 
well  practised  that  Thessalonica  served  as  a  model 
to  all  the  faithful  in  Macedonia  and  in  Achaia  (i.  7), 
they  walked  in  the  way  of  the  Lord,  they  loved  one 
another  (iii.  9),  they  edified  one  another,  the  Holy 
Ghost  bestowed  His  gifts  upon  them  especially  the 
gift  of  prophecy. 

But  there  was  a  reverse  to  the  medal.  Some  were 
beginning  to  forget  the  teaching  of  the  apostle  and 
to  turn  away  from  his  precepts.  His  exhortations 
(1  iv.  3)  to  them  to  abstain  from  impurity  show  that 
some  of  them  had  gone  back  to  a  vice  that  was  so 
common  in  the  great  cities  at  that  time.  Others  were 
not  ashamed  to  overcome  their  brethren  in  business 
(iv.  6).  Some  even  lived  in  idleness,  abandoning  the 
care  of  their  own  affairs,  in  spite  of  his  exhortations 
to  the  contrary  (iv.  11),  on  the  ground  that  the  ap- 
proach of  the  coming  of  Christ  made  it  superfluous 
to  provide  for  the  future  (2  iii.  11). 

The  doctrine  that  the  end  of  the  world  was  at  hand 
had  caused  great  uneasiness  among  the  recent  con- 
verts, they  were  anxious  about  those  who  were 
already  dead,  and  wanted  to  know  whether  they 
would  have  any  share  in  the  triumph  of  Christ  (iv. 
13-17).  Besides  there  was  the  persecution  that  they 
had  to  suffer  from  their  fellow-citizens  (ii.  14)  and 
still  worse  were  the  insinuations  that  were  being 
made  against  Paul  and  his  companions :  people  said 
that  the  Apostle  was  an  impostor,  a  cheat,  a  flatterer, 
a  man  who  was  proud,  angry,  and  avaricious ;  that 
he  never  acted  disinterestedly  or  even  honestly  (ii. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  71 

3-12),  that  he  was  a  coward  for  running  away  as  soon 
as  persecution  made  its  appearance,  that  he  had  aban- 
doned them,  that  he  did  not  return  to  visit  them,  and 
that  he  would  not  have  acted  in  this  way  if  he  had 
really  loved  them  (ii.  17-20). 

St  Paul  meets  all  these  difficulties  first  by  recog- 
nising in  general  the  good  estate  of  the  community ; 
and  then  he  defends  himself  against  the  accusations  of 
his  enemies,  these  were  no  doubt  unbelieving  Jews 
who  being  his  fellow-countrymen  claimed  to  be 
better  acquainted  with  the  Apostles,  he  assures  the 
Thessalonians  of  his  love  and  attachment,  of  his  long- 
ing to  see  them  again,  he  offers  them  consolation 
under  the  persecution  to  which  they  were  exposed ; 
then  he  reminds  them  of  his  moral  precepts,  and 
finally  by  way  of  appendix  he  instructs  them 
about  the  end  of  the  world  and  reassures  them 
with  regard  to  the  fate  of  the  deceased  brethren. 
This  epistle  is  written  in  simple  style,  currente 
calavio,  and  though  there  is  a  natural  order  in  the 
thoughts  one  cannot  say  that  it  was  composed  on 
a  plan. 

3.    ANALYSIS    OF    THE    EPISTLE 

Every  student  will  read  the  epistle  for  himself,  and 
will  see  that  it  consists  of  a  prologue,  a  part  that  is 
personal  (i.-iii.)  and  a  part  that  contains  moral  ex- 
hortations (iv.-v.) 

Prologue  (i.  1-10). — Paul  associates  with  himself 
the  two  fellow-labourers  that  are  with  him  :  Silvanus 
and  Timothy,  and  begins  the  epistle  by  thanks  to 
God  for  the  fruit  of  salvation  borne  by  the  Gospel 
among  the  Thessalonians.  He  reminds  them  of  what 
his  preaching  among  theni  was,  with  what  ardour 


72  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

they  listened  to  it,  and  how  from  them  it  was  re- 
echoed in  all  Macedonia  and  Achaia. 

Personal  part  (i.  10-iii.  11). — He  reminds  them  of 
how  he  had  suiFered  in  Philippi  before  going  to 
Thessalonica,  and  of  how  nevertheless  he  fearlessly 
preached  to  them  the  gospel  in  a  great  struggle. 
He  declares  that  he  preached  not  from  error,  or  any 
impure  motive,  or  from  craftiness,  or  to  please  men, 
but  to  please  God  ;  without  flattery,  without  seeking 
his  own  profit,  though  as  an  apostle  of  Christ  he  had 
power  to  be  a  burden  on  them.  On  the  contrary  he 
had  been  mild  and  gentle,  as  a  nurse  with  her  nurs- 
lings. He  reminds  them  of  how  he  laboured  both 
by  day  and  by  night  so  that  he  might  not  be  a  burden 
to  them  while  he  was  preaching  the  Gospel  to  them. 
And  he  claims  that  his  conduct  was  holy,  and  just, 
and  without  reproach. 

He  bears  witness  that  they  accepted  his  teaching 
not  as  the  words  of  a  man,  but  as  in  truth  it  is 
the  words  of  God.  They  became  imitators  of  the 
churches  in  Judea,  and  suffered  from  their  fellow- 
citizens'  persecution,  just  as  the  Christians  in  Judea 
suffered  from  those  who  put  the  Lord  to  death. 
These  Jews  wish  to  prevent  him  from  preaching  to 
the  Gentiles,  but  the  anger  of  God  is  upon 
them. 

He  longs  to  visit  the  Thessalonians,  has  twice  tried 
to  go  to  them,  but  Satan  has  prevented  him.  There- 
fore he  resolved  to  remain  alone  in  Athens,  and  sent 
Timothy  to  them.  Now  that  Timothy  has  returned 
to  him  and  brought  him  the  good  news  of  their  faith 
and  charity  and  of  their  wish  to  see  him  again,  Paul 
is  consoled  and  thanks  God. 

Practical  part. — He  tells  them  to  abstain  from 
fornication,  not  to  live  by  passion  like  the  pagans, 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  73 

nor  to  be  unjust  in  their  dealings  with  one  another, 
to  work  with  their  hands,  and  to  live  peaceably. 

He  reassures  them  as  to  the  fate  of  those  who  die 
before  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ.  "  We  affirm  to 
you,"  he  says,  "  in  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that  we  who 
are  alive  shall  not  precede  those  who  are  dead ;  at 
the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  and  at  the  voice  of  the 
archangel,  Christ  will  come  down  from  heaven,  the 
dead  will  rise  first,  then  we  who  are  left  will  be 
caught  up  into  heaven,  and  thus  we  shall  for  ever  be 
with  the  Lord." 

The  time  of  the  Coming  being  unknown,  he 
exhorts  them  to  be  always  ready.  They  know  that 
that  day  is  to  come  suddenly  like  a  thief  in  the  night. 

He  exhorts  them  to  have  consideration  and  affec- 
tion for  those  who  are  placed  over  them,  to  live  in 
peace,  to  comfort  those  who  are  discouraged,  not  to 
extinguish  the  Spirit,  not  to  despise  prophecies,  to 
examine  all  things  and  to  hold  fast  what  is 
good. 

Epilogue  (v.  23-28). — He  prays  that  the  God  of 
peace  may  keep  them  without  blame  until  the  Coming 
of  Christ,  asks  them  to  pray  for  him,  to  salute  each 
other  with  a  holy  kiss,  and  adjures  them  to  read  out 
the  epistle  to  all  the  brethren. 


4.    TIME    AND    PLACE    OF   WRITING 

If  we  put  together  the  information  that  we  find 
in  the  Acts  and  in  this  epistle,  we  must  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  written  when  Paul,  Silas,  and 
Timothy  were  together  (1  Thess.  i.  1),  and  when 
Timothy  had  come  back  from  the  mission  on  which 
he  had  been  sent  from  Athens,     According  to  Acts 


74  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

xviii.  5  Paul  was  in  Corinth  when  Silas  and  Timothy- 
came  to  him  from  Macedonia,  and  he  cannot  have 
been  long  in  that  city  at  that  time.  Although  every- 
thing seems  to  be  so  fresh  in  the  memory  of  the 
apostle  (1  vi.  9  and  ii.  9),  and  although  he  speaks 
as  if  only  a  short  time  had  elapsed  since  he  left 
Thessalonica  (ii.  17),  still  we  must  allow  for  a  space 
of  several  months.  For  in  the  meanwhile  he  had 
founded  a  church  at  Berea,  evangelised  in  Athens, 
founded  churches  in  Achaia  (1  Th.  i.  7),  time 
must  also  be  allowed  for  Timothy's  mission  and 
return,  and  for  the  fame  of  the  conversion  of  the 
Thessalonians  to  be  spread  abroad  everywhere 
— which  means  of  course  in  Asia  Minor  and 
Greece.  From  all  this  it  is  probable  that  this 
epistle  was  written  some  five  or  six  months  after 
he  had  departed  from  Thessalonica,  that  is,  in  the 
year  50-52. 

We  must  mention  however  that  several  MSS.  in 
Greek,  Latin,  Syriac  and  Coptic  state  that  this  epistle 
was  "written  at  Athens."  Theodoretus,  Euthalius, 
Walafridus  Strabo  and  among  modern  critics  Schrader 
and  Kohler  are  of  this  opinion,  the  last  two  authors 
explaining  that  it  was  on  the  occasion  of  a  second 
visit  to  Athens.  In  spite  of  these  authorities,  we 
maintain  that  historical  facts  known  to  us  are  incom- 
patible with  this  view :  Timothy  must  have  been 
with  him,  and  it  was  at  Corinth  that  he  found  him 
(Acts  xviii.  5) ;  besides  as  the  Thessalonians  served  for 
a  model  to  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  he  must  have 
founded  a  church  in  Achaia,  and  we  know  that 
Corinth  was  the  first  that  he  founded  there.  Finally 
Euthalius  says  elsewhere  that  this  epistle  was  written 
from  Corinth.  And  that  is  the  generally  accepted 
opinion. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  75 


5.    AUTHENTICITY    OF    THIS    EPISTLE 

All  the  ancient  writers  who  mention  this  epistle 
attribute  it  to  St  Paul,  it  is  only  in  modern  times  that 
Baur,  Schrader,  van  Vies,  Holsten  and  Steck  have 
called  its  authenticity  in  question.  The  objections 
that  they  make  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  meet- 
ing. Besides  at  the  present  time  everybody  except 
a  few  Dutch  writers  says  that  this  is  a  genuine 
epistle. 

St  Ireneus  (Adv.  her.  v.  6,  1  and  v.  30,  2)  quotes 
the  passages  1  Thess.  v.  22  and  v.  3,  saying  that  they 
are  taken  from  the  first  epistle  of  St  Paul  to  the 
Thessalonians.  Tertullian  (De  Resur.  24)  quotes  as 
written  to  the  Thessalonians  the  passages  i.  9,  10  and 
V.  1.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Psedag.  v.  19)  quotes  the 
words  of  Blessed  Paul  1  Thess.  ii.  7  {cf.  Strom,  ii.  11, 
iv.  12  =  1  Thess.  iv.  3-9  and  Strom,  i.  9  =  1  Thess. 
V.  21).  This  epistle  was  in  Marcion's  collection  (Zahn 
Gesch.  des  neut.  Kanons,  ii.  p.  520),  it  is  in  the 
canon  of  Muratori  and  in  the  old  Latin  and  Syriac 
versions,  and  finally  one  can  find  in  early  Christian 
writings  expressions  and  ideas  that  seem  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  this  epistle  or  suggested  by  it.  Com- 
pare Barnabas,  xvi.  =  1  Thess.  v.  14,  and  xxi.  =  iv.  9  ; 
Clement  of  Rome,  I.  xxxviii.  1  =  1  Thess.  v.  23,  and 
xxxviii.  4  =  V.  18  ;  Ignatius  Martyr  Eph.  x.  1  =  1  Thess. 
v.  17;  Philad.  ii.  l=v.  5;  ad  Polyc.  i.  3.  =  v.  17; 
Pastor   of  Hermas  Vis.    iii.   6,  9,   12,    Sim,   vii.   12 

=  1  Thess.  V.  13  and  22 ;  Polycarp  and    Philip,  ii.  2 

=  1  Thess.  V.  22,  and  iv.  3  =  v.  17. 
Language  of  the  Epistle. — The  expressions  that  are 

characteristic  of  St  Paul  are   found  in  this   epistle. 


76  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Ad.  Johannes,  pp.  56-62  gives  a  great  number  of  nouns, 
adjectives,  verbs  and  adverbs  from  this  epistle  that 
are  found  in  the  same  sense  in  the  four  great  pauHne 
epistles ;  he  compares  parallel  expressions  and  con- 
structions, and  shows  that  everything  that  char- 
acterises the  pauline  epistles  is  found  here  also.  In 
the  same  way,  the  style  reminds  one  of  that  of  the 
great  epistles,  for  we  see  here  the  same  mystical 
profundity,  the  same  concision  and  originality.  The 
similarities  are  so  striking  and  so  numerous  that  Baur 
and  Holsten  are  driven  to  say  that  the  writer  in  order 
to  give  a  character  of  probability  to  his  forgery  had 
imitated  the  language  and  the  style  of  the  Apostle 
and  especially  the  thoughts  and  words  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  This  hypothesis  attributes  to  the 
forger  a  very  remarkable  degree  of  skill,  for  the  re- 
semblance to  St  Paul  is  really  very  great.  And  did 
people  in  those  days  trouble  to  copy  the  language  or 
the  style  of  an  author  to  whom  they  wished  what 
they  wrote  to  be  attributed  ? 

The  fiapaxlegomena  are  twenty  in  number,  and  are 
in  about  the  same  proportion  as  in  the  other  epistles, 
the  number  is  exactly  the  same  as  in  the  first  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  Twelve  of  these  hapax.  are  words 
from  classical  Greek,  six  only  are  found  here  for  the 

first  time,  viz.  ap-yayyeKo^i  OeoSiSaKTO^,  oAoreX?/?, 
7rXt]po(popia,  (rvfKpvXerr]^,  VTrepeKTrepio-a-cog. 

Some  expressions  however  are  found  here  that  are 
not  to   be   found   in   the   other   epistles :    \a\wai  to 

evayyeXiov    rod  Oeov,   u.    2  ;    ev  irpocfyda-ei     TrXeove^iag,   ii.    5  ; 

eu  ^apei  elvai,  ii.  6 ;  and  especially  unpauline  are  said 

to   be  :     epyov  T^9  TTicTTewg,   kotto?  rrj?  ayaTrr]^,   vTrofxovt]  t^9 

eX-TTiSog,  i.  3.  These  expressions  appear  to  have  been 
in  current  use  among  the  faithful  {cf.  Apoc,  ii.  2) ;  if 
St  Paul  made  no  use  of  them  in  writing  to  churches 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  77 

where  the  necessity  of  good  works  was  under  dis- 
cussion, that  is  because  they  might  have  been  mis- 
understood, but  there  was  no  danger  of  that  kind  at 
Thessalonica.  On  the  other  hand  we  have  in  this 
epistle  distinctly  pauline  expressions  :  Oeopa^  Tricrreco?  koI 
dyoLTn]?,  V.  8  =  Eph.  vi.  14,  etc. 

Doctrine  of  the  Epistle. — The  aim  of  this  epistle 
was  above  all  things  practical.  As  a  rule  St  Paul  in 
his  epistles  taught  only  those  doctrines  that  were 
suitable  to  the  state  of  mind  of  his  readers.  That  is 
why  in  this  practical  epistle  we  do  not  find  any 
unfolding  of  the  doctrines  that  are  so  characteristic  of 
the  great  epistles :  justification  by  faith,  abrogation 
of  the  mosaic  law.  Death  and  Resurrection  of  Christ, 
or  Redemption.  These  were  not  yet  ripe.  But  in 
germ  we  find  them  here.  God  the  Father  is  exhibited 
as  the  merciful  author  of  sanctification  (iv.  7  ;  v.  23) ; 
through  Jesus  His  Son  (i.  10)  who  is  the  mediator  of 
this  sanctification  (ii.  15;  iv.  2  ;  v.  28),  and  through  the 
Holy  Ghost  the  active  principle  of  the  sanctification 
of  the  faithful  (i.  5  ;  iv.  8) ;  the  faithful  have  become 
elect  on  account  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  (i.  4 
and  5) ;  in  Christ  they  have  faith,  charity  and  hope 
(i.  3) ;  they  await  His  Coming  to  deliver  them  from  the 
wrath.  All  that  is  said  here  as  to  the  parousia  is  in 
agreement  with  what  is  taught  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  (1  Cor.  xv.).  He  does  not  indeed  say  here 
as  1  Cor.  XV.  51  that  the  living  will  be  transformed 
before  they  go  to  meet  Christ,  but  he  says  nothing 
that  cannot  be  made  to  fit  in  with  that  doctrine. 

The  passage :  "  We  who  are  alive,  who  are  left  for 
the  Coming  of  the  Lord  "  cannot  be  brought  as  an 
argument  against  the  pauline  origin  of  this  epistle. 
It  does  not  necessarily  mean,  as  some  say,  that  Paul 
believed  and  taught  that  he  would  be  living  at  the 


78  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

time  of  the  Coming.  For  that  would  imply  that  he 
and  his  fellow-labourers  and  the  faithful  of  Thessalonica, 
who  were  of  course  living  when  he  wrote  to  them, 
would  still  be  living  at  the  Coming ;  and  this  would 
mean  that  he  knew  the  time  of  it.  But  that  is 
contrary  to  the  context,  for  (v.  1)  he  says  that  of  the 
time  and  the  moment  nothing  is  known  except  the 
unexpectedness.  It  is  simpler  to  suppose  that  as  the 
Thessalonians  were  anxious  with  regard  to  those  who 
were  dead,  St  Paul  meant  by :  "  We  who  are  alive  " 
to  contrast  those  who  were  to  be  alive  at  the  Coming 
with  those  who  would  be  dead  at  the  Coming ;  the 
expression  "  who  are  left "  is  in  apposition  with  "  We 
who  are  alive."  The  word  "  We "  need  not  mean 
only  Paul  and  his  companions,  it  may  be  taken  in  a 
more  general  meaning,  as  we  see  in  other  passages : 
thus  sometimes  he  includes  himself  among  the  dead 
who  are  to  rise :  "  God  who  raised  the  Lord  will  raise 
us  also  by  His  power"  (1  Cor.  vi.  14;  2  Cor.  iv.  14), 
sometimes  he  includes  himself  among  the  living : 
"  We  shall  not  all  die,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed  " 
(1  Cor.  XV.  51). 

Nevertheless,  if  by  that  word  "  We  "  it  is  main- 
tained that  St  Paul  meant  that  he  w^ould  be  alive 
when  Christ  came,  then  we  have  a  manifest  proof 
that  this  epistle  is  genuine,  for  no  forger  writing 
after  the  death  of  the  apostle  could  have  put  that  in. 
It  is  quite  possible  however  that  he  believed  the 
Coming  not  to  be  far  off,  that  was  the  common  belief 
of  the  early  Christians. 

Historical  data. — Baur  and  other  critics  admit  that 
between  this  epistle  and  the  Acts  there  is  historical 
agreement.  The  following  instances  may  usefully 
be  given.  The  epistle  is  written  in  the  names  of 
Paul,    Silas   and   Timothy,    Silas    is    named   in   the 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  79 

second  place  as  in  the  Acts  xviii.  5  and  2  Cor.  i.  19. 
The  persecution  in  the  midst  of  which  the  Gospel  is 
preached  at  Thessalonica  is  mentioned  (1  Thess.  i.  6 
and  ii.  14  =  Acts  xvii.  5 ;  cf.  also  1  Thess.  i.  9 ;  Acts 
xviii.  4).  The  discrepancies  that  Baur  alleges  between 
the  Acts  and  this  epistle  are  refuted  by  the  historical 
account  given  above.  Besides  he  himself  refuses  to 
believe  in  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle  because  the 
agreement  between  the  two  is  so  great  that  the  writer 
of  the  epistle  must  have  borrowed  both  his  historical 
framework  and  his  style  from  the  Acts.  We  admit 
the  agreement,  but  we  deny  the  conclusion  that  he 
draws  from  it.  For,  must  the  epistle  disagree  with 
the  Acts  to  be  authentic  ? 

However,  there  is  a  passage  that  requires  to  be 
considered  attentively.  It  is  difficult  to  understand 
how  St  Paul  could  (ii.  14)  recall  the  persecutions  of 
the  Christians  by  their  Jewish  fellow-countrymen, 
since  he  had  himself  been  one  of  the  most  ardent 
persecutors ;  or  how  he  could  say  that  God's  anger 
against  the  Jews  had  reached  the  utmost  limit,  since 
he  loved  his  own  nation  so  much,  and  was  (Rom.  ii. 
26)  to  foretell  the  ultimate  salvation  of  Israel.  By 
way  of  explanation  we  may  say  that  he  wrote  his 
epistles  under  the  impression  of  the  moment,  and  his 
own  recent  experiences  in  Macedonia  and  Corinth 
were  entirely  in  keeping  with  what  he  says  as  to  the 
Jews  being  the  murderers  of  Christ  and  of  the 
prophets.  In  spite  of  his  patriotism  he  stated  what 
was  the  truth.  What  he  wrote  later  on  to  the 
Romans  is  not  a  contradiction  of  what  he  writes  now 
to  the  Thessalonians.  In  both  cases  he  speaks  of 
the  punishment  of  Israel  (1  Thess.  ii.  16 ;  Rom.  ii.  7- 
15-25),  but  in  the  latter  epistle  he  foretells  that  after 
the  punishment  and  when  the  purpose  to  be  reached 


80  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

by  the  hardening  of  their  hearts  has  been   attained, 
then  Israel  will  be  saved  (xi.  25). 

From  all  this,  the  conclusion  that  we  must  draw  is 
that  this  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  is  in  agree- 
ment with  the  other  epistles  of  St  Paul  and  is 
authentic. 


6.    OCCASION    AND    OBJECT    OF    THE    SECOND    EPISTLE 
TO    THE    THESSALONIANS 

Not  long  after  he  had  written  the  first  epistle,  St 
Paul  was  obliged  to  write  the  second,  in  order  to 
explain  some  points  that  had  been  misunderstood, 
and  in  order  to  remedy  a  state  of  things  that  might 
have  wrought  injury  to  the  youthful  community. 
He  must  have  heard  from  the  Thessalonians.  The 
brethren  were  still  suffering  persecution  (i.  4),  but 
their  faith  and  charity  were  greatly  improved.  His 
explanations  with  regard  to  the  dead  had  put  an  end 
to  their  anxieties,  still  they  were  troubled  by  certain 
persons  who  claimed  to  be  inspired,  or  else  claimed 
to  be  able  to  rely  upon  some  spoken  word  or  upon 
some  written  letter  of  the  apostle's,  and  taught  that 
the  Last  Day  was  at  hand  (2  i.  2).  On  account  of 
this  doctrine  some  of  the  brethren  neglected  manual 
work,  and  gave  all  their  time  to  superfluities  and  to 
lucubrations  on  the  near  approach  of  the  Coming  of 
Christ,  the  result  of  which  was  that  there  was  disorder 
in  the  community  (iii.  11).  The  apostle  had  therefore 
to  console  the  brethren  under  their  persecution  and 
to  define  more  clearly  his  doctrine  of  the  parousia  of 
Christ.  Therefore  after  rendering  thanks  to  God  for 
their  spiritual  gifts,  he  assures  them  that  their 
sufferings  are  a  pledge  of  their  future  entrance  into 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  81 

the  kingdom  of  God,  that  their  persecutors  will  be 
punished  at  the  Coming  of  the  Lord.  He  speaks  of 
the  signs  that  are  to  precede  the  coming,  and  pre- 
scribes severe  measures  against  those  who  refuse  to 
work. 

7.    ANALYSIS   OF   THE   EPISTLE 

The  pauline  form  of  writing  is  more  clearly  marked 
in  this  epistle  than  in  the  preceding  one :  a  salutation, 
then  a  thanksgiving,  next  dogmatic  teaching,  and 
finally  moral  exhortations. 

The  Salutation  and  Thanksgiving  (i.  1-12). — Paul, 
Silvanus  and  Timothy  wish  to  the  church  of  the 
Thessalonians  grace  and  peace  ;  then  they  thank  God 
for  their  continual  progress  in  faith  and  charity 
which  are  so  great  that  the  apostles  are  able  to  glorify 
themselves  in  the  churches  of  God  on  the  perseverance 
of  the  Thessalonians  in  the  faith  in  spite  of  persecu- 
tions. Paul  explains  why  Almighty  allows  these 
persecutions  to  arise,  to  show  the  justice  of  His 
judgment  when  He  will  reward  the  brethren  and 
punish  their  persecutors  at  His  Coming.  Paul  prays 
that  they  may  be  worthy  of  their  vocation. 

Dogmatic  Teaching  (ii.  1-12). — He  begs  them  not 
to  be  troubled  by  any  spirit  (revelation)  or  word,  or 
letter  attributed  to  him  as  if  the  Coming  were  at 
hand,  because  the  apostasy  must  first  come,  and  the 
man  of  sin  must  first  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition, 
the  adversary  of  God  putting  himself  above  every- 
thing that  is  called  God  or  worshipped  so  as  even  to 
sit  in  the  Temple  and  call  himself  God.  He  has 
already  spoken  to  them  of  all  this,  and  they  know 
what  delays  the  adversary  in  order  that  he  may  be 
revealed  in  his  time. 


82  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

Exhortations  (ii.  13-iii.  18). — He  thanks  God 
because  they  have  been  chosen  for  salvation  through 
the  Gospel.  They  are  to  remain  firm  in  his  teaching. 
And  they  are  to  pray  that  he  may  be  free  to  preach, 
and  may  be  delivered  from  his  adversaries. 

Then  he  exhorts  them  to  avoid  any  brother  who 
lives  in  such  a  w^ay  as  to  create  disorder.  He  reminds 
them  of  the  example  that  he  gave  them  when  he  was 
with  them :  he  worked  to  earn  his  bread  and  was  not 
a  burden  to  anyone,  not  because  he  had  no  authority, 
but  because  he  wished  to  give  them  a  good  example. 
He  has  heard  that  some  of  them  refuse  to  work,  he 
orders  them  to  work  and  to  eat  their  own  bread.  If 
anyone  will  not  obey  this  order,  they  are  to  hold  no 
communication  with  him,  and  yet  are  not  to  look 
upon  him  as  an  enemy.  He  ends  with  a  salutation, 
remarking  that  it  is  in  his  own  handwriting  and  that 
that  will  be  so  in  every  epistle. 


8.    TIME    AND    PLACE    OF    WRITING 

It  was  certainly  at  Corinth  that  this  epistle  was 
written,  because  that  is  the  last  place  where  we  know 
that  the  three  who  wrote  it :  Paul,  Silvanus  and 
Timothy  were  together.  And  it  was  written  not 
long  after  the  first  one,  since  the  state  of  the  church 
at  Thessalonica  was  as  we  have  seen  identical.  Never- 
theless there  are  signs  of  some  gradual  change,  in  the 
second  epistle  the  praise  bestowed  on  the  faith  of  the 
Thessalonians  is  more  marked,  but  the  tone  is  less 
affectionate ;  time  was  beginning  to  do  its  work. 
Persecution  was  more  severe,  and  the  constancy  of 
the  faithful  was  greater.  Some  critics  like  Grotius, 
Ewald,  Baur,  and  Renan  put  this  epistle  before  the 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  83 

other ;  it  is  hard  to  understand  why,  for  it  is  waste 
of  time  to  discuss  the  reasons  that  they  put  forward. 
The  date  then  of  this  epistle  is  about  50-52,  or  if  the 
apostle  alludes  (ii.  3)  to  the  persecutions  that  he 
suffered  from  the  Jews  (Acts  xviii.  6-12)  then  the 
date  would  be  about  52-53. 


9.    AUTHENTICITY    OF    THIS    SECOND    EPISTLE 

Christian  tradition  is  altogether  in  favour  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  epistle,  but  many  modern  critics 
hold  the  opposite  opinion  ;  one  cannot  help  thinking 
that  there  is  a  fondness  for  novelty  in  these  moderns, 
because  the  objections  that  they  make  are  very  easy 
to  answer. 

Passages  reminding  us  of  this  epistle  are  found  in 
the  epistle  of  Barnabas  (xv.  5  =  2  Thess.  ii.  3),  in  the 
epistle  of  Polycarp  (xi.  4  =  2  Thess.  iii.  15),  in  Justin's 
Dial,  (xxxii.  12  and  ex.  6  =  2  Thess.  ii.  3).  In  the 
Didache  (xvi.  4)  the  appearance  of  the  seducer  of  the 
world  as  Son  of  God  is  very  similar  to  the  revelation 
of  the  man  of  sin  (2  Thess.  ii.  3).  St  Ireneus  quotes 
with  regard  to  Antichrist  a  passage  which  he  says  is 
taken  from  the  second  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 
and  (Adv.  Her.  iii.  7-2  and  v.  25)  he  attributes  that 
quotation  plainly  to  the  apostle.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria (Strom.  V.  33)  and  Tertullian  (De  Resur. 
Carnis  24  and  Scorp.  13)  bear  formal  testimony  also. 
This  epistle  was  in  Marcion's  collection,  it  is  in 
Muratori's  canon  and  in  the  ancient  Latin  and  Syriac 
versions. 

The  reasons  alleged  against  the  authenticity  are 
based  upon :  internal  order,  history,  language  and 
doctrine.     Some  critics  reject  the  whole  of  it,  some 


84  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

only  a  part,  some  hold  the  passage  ii.  1-12  to  be 
pauline,  others  hold  the  whole  epistle  to  be  genuine 
with  the  exception  of  that  very  passage.  It  would 
take  too  long  to  weigh  all  the  arguments  that  have 
been  alleged,  we  will  confine  ourselves  to  those  that 
are  to  this  day  supposed  to  be  of  importance. 

And  first,  there  is  no  opposition  of  the  second 
epistle  to  the  first ;  so  little  opposition  is  there,  that 
some  critics  reject  it  for  the  very  reason  that  it  was 
forged  in  imitation  of  the  first  one.  Spitta  calculates 
that  outside  of  ii.  1-12  there  are  only  nine  verses  in 
which  no  ideas  or  expressions  are  borrowed  from  the 
first  epistle.  Weizsacker,  Holtzman,  and  some  other 
hold  that  it  is  very  like  a  copy  of  the  first  one.  {Cf. 
1  Thess.  V.  25  =  2  iii.  1,  1  ;  v.  24  and  iii.  11=2  iii.  3 ; 
1  ii.  9  =  2  iii.  8,  etc.)  But  these  similarities  maybe 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  two  epistles  were  written 
within  a  short  space  of  time.  Let  us  therefore  pass 
on  to  the  details,  and  let  us  show  that  the  two  epistles 
are  not  in  disagreement  one  with  the  other. 

St  Paul  may  without  contradicting  himself  have 
spoken  in  two  different  ways  of  his  habit  of  working 
with  his  hands,  one  way  was  his  saying  that  he  worked 
in  order  not  to  be  a  burden  on  the  brethren,  another 
way  was  that  he  worked  in  order  to  give  a  good 
example  ;  evidently  these  two  purposes  do  not  in  any 
way  exclude  one  another.  As  regards  the  parousia 
of  Christ,  the  two  epistles  do  not  take  exactly  the 
same  point  of  view.  St  Paul  does  not  say  precisely 
in  the  first  epistle  that  the  Coming  of  Christ  is  near 
at  hand,  nor  does  he  say  precisely  in  the  second  that 
it  is  far  off;  all  that  he  teaches  in  the  first  is  that  the 
hour  and  the  moment  is  unknown,  and  in  the  second 
he  describes  the  signs  that  must  precede  it,  and  refers 
to  the  cause  of  delay.     Supposing  that  in  the  first 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  85 

epistle  he  meant  to  say  that  he  would  still  be  living 
at  the  parousia,  that  would  not  exclude  the  time 
necessary  for  the  development  of  the  signs  mentioned 
in  the  second  epistle.  Therefore  there  is  no  contra- 
diction here  either. 

Besides  in  2  ii.  St  Paul  speaks,  not  of  forged  letters 
pretending  to  have  been  written  by  him — this  would 
be  incomprehensible  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  work 
of  founding  churches — but  of  a  false  interpretation 
put  upon  his  first  letter.  And  in  iii.  17  he  does  not 
put  his  readers  on  their  guard  as  to  forged  letters,  he 
merely  gives  them  a  sample  of  his  handwriting  accord- 
ing to  the  custom  that  prevailed  at  the  time  between 
correspondents. 

There  is  something  more  tangible  in  the  arguments 
that  are  drawn  from  the  literary  peculiarities.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  language  of  this  epistle  is  not  the 
same  as  that  of  the  other  pauline  epistles.  But  the 
facts  do  not  support  this  assertion.  This  second 
epistle  contains  only  eleven  words  that  are  not  found 
elsewhere,  and  that  is  the  same  proportion  of  hapaoc- 
legomeiia  as  for  the  other  epistles.  Nine  of  these  are 
classical  words,  and  three  are  in  the  Septuagint.  It 
is  true  that  certain  expressions  are  peculiar  to  this 
epistle.  St  Paul  says  twice  over  (i.  3  and  ii.  13) 
6<peiXofX€v  ev-)(api(TTeiu  whcrcas  in  the  first  and  elsewhere 
he  says  evyapKXTovixev  (i.  2  and  ii.  13).     We  see  also 

a^iovv    rfjg    KX^crew?,    eTrKpaveia     TrJ9     irapovala?,    aycnrt]    r^? 

a.\r]9€ia?.  God  is  here  called  Kvpio9  (iii.  3-5  and  ii.  16), 
whereas  in  the  other  epistles  He  is  called  Geo?  except 
in  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament.  Elsewhere 
Christ  is  called  simply  Kvpio?,  whereas  in  this  epistle 
He  is  usually  called :  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ " 
(i.  8-12  and  ii.  1)  or  "the  Lord  Jesus"  (ii.  8)  or  "the 
Lord  Jesus   Christ"   (i.   1-12)  and  sometimes  "the 


86  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Lord"  (iii.  1-4,  5-16).  It  is  not  absolutely  certain 
that  in  the  doubtful  passages  Kvpio?  does  not  mean 
Christ  and  not  God.  We  may  remark  also  that  this 
epistle  is  more  impregnated  than  the  others  with  the 
style  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  that  St  Paul  might 
for  that  reason  have  used  Kvpio's  in  place  of  Oeo?  accord- 
ing to  the  custom  of  the  Septuagint.  Besides  he  has 
done  so  elsewhere  (1  Cor.  iii.  5).  Moreover  these 
expressions  that  are  supposed  not  to  be  pauline  prove 
nothing,  for  no  writer  is  bound  to  express  himself 
always  in  exactly  the  same  way.  Quite  a  number  of 
words  and  expressions  occur  only  once  in  the  epistles, 
and  there  are  formulas  that  occur  without  any  kind 
of  regularity.  Thus  t/  ovv  epovfxev  is  found  seven 
times  in  the  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  not  once 
anywhere  else.  The  various  epistles  have  analogous 
and  not  identical  expressions. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  some  identical  expres- 
sions in  these  two  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  for 
instance  epyov  r^?  Tr/crrew?  (i.  1,  3  and  ii.  2,  11)  which  is 
quite  characteristic.  In  this  as  in  the  other  epistles 
St  Paul  loves  to  play  upon  words  and  antitheses  (iii.  11 ; 
i.  10 ;  iii.  2-3 ;  i.  6-7 ;  ii.  16-17)  and  anacoluthons 
(ii.  3),  parallelism  of  sentences  (i.  6-12 ;  ii.  1-4,  7-12, 
13-17 ;  iii.  1-5,  7-12),  the  infinitive  used  with  eh  to 
(i.  5 ;  ii.  2-11),  frequent  repetitions  of  a  word  or  its 
compounds :  a-TroKaXvy^fiq  four  times,  Trla-Ti?  TTia-ros  nine 
times ;  there  are  here  several  words  that  are  special 

to  St  Paul :    TrXeova^elv,  ayaBo(jvvr},   euia-rrjfxi,  evepyeia,  etC.  ; 

and  particles  or  conjunctions  that  he  makes  frequent 

use  of :   €L  t/?,  €1  ov,  edv,  orav,  ore,  w?,  two-re,  7raJ9  ;   and  also 

those  that  he  alone  uses :   elTrep,  elre  which  are  very 

often  found  in  St  Paul  and  not  in  any  other  New 

Testament  writer  except  St  Peter  who  has  eWe  twice. 

The  style  is  much  heavier  and  much  more  laboured 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  87 

than  in  the  first  epistle.  The  sentences  are  longer, 
less  distinct,  loaded  with  conjunctions  forming  sub- 
ordinate sentences,  and  in  many  cases  the  last  words 
of  one  sentence  form  the  connection  with  the  follow- 
ing sentence.  Examine  for  instance  the  following 
sentence  (i.  3) :  "  We  must  render  thanks  to  God  .  .  . 
because  .  .  .  and  because  ...  so  that  .  .  .  and  that " 
down  to  the  eleventh  verse.  Cf.  also  ii.  2-11,  the 
warnings  as  to  the  man  of  sin  and  to  what  detains  him. 
All  remarks  of  this  kind  serve  only  to  prove  that  this 
epistle  is  pauline,  for  that  is  the  pauline  style.  You 
must  never  have  looked  at  the  Greek  text  not  to  be 
convinced  of  it.  Compare  the  very  first  sentence  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans  and  so  many  others  that 
might  be  quoted. 

It  is  quite  true  that  to  a  certain  extent  the  tone  is 
not  so  affectionate  or  so  personal  as  in  the  first  epistle, 
sentences  are  more  measured  and  less  spontaneous. 
Compare  2  i.  3-7  with  1  i.  2-5;  2  i.  10-12  with 
1  ii.  19,  etc.  It  could  not  be  otherwise,  because 
St  Paul  had  no  longer  the  vivid  impression  that  had 
been  produced  in  him  by  his  being  forced  to  leave 
Thessalonica.  Other  grave  preoccupations  absorbed 
his  attention.  Absence  and  length  of  time  had  begun 
to  tell.  Nevertheless  personal  touches  are  not  alto- 
gether wanting  (i.  10  ;  ii.  13  ;  i.  3  ;  ii.  2  ;  iii.  6-16,  etc.). 

Last  and  not  least,  this  epistle  it  is  objected  cannot 
have  been  written  by  St  Paul  because  its  eschatology 
presupposes  a  state  of  things  that  was  not  in  existence 
before  his  death.  The  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition, 
the  adversary  of  God,  reminds  one  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse ;  either  this  epistle  is  based  upon  the  Apoca- 
lypse, or  it  reproduces  the  state  of  mind  that  gave 
birth  to  the  last  book  of  the  New  Testament.  "  The 
writer,"  says  Holtzman,  "  was  acquainted  with  the 


88  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

thirteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse." 
Ranch  maintains  that  this  second  epistle  was  written 
after  the  Apocalypse  by  someone  who  wished  to 
develop  pauline  eschatology  in  the  Judeo-Christian 
spirit.  Antichrist  and  the  Beast  of  the  Apocalypse 
are  Nero,  who  was  popularly  supposed  not  to  be  dead 
but  to  be  destined  to  come  to  reign  again.  This 
would  bring  us  to  about  the  year  68-70  when  St  Paul 
was  dead.  We  cannot  now  discuss  the  origin  of  the 
idea  of  Antichrist,  all  that  we  need  do  is  to  show  that 
the  writer  of  the  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  did  not 
take  it  from  Johannine  writings. 

It  would  take  too  long  to  state  all  the  hypotheses 
that  deal  with  the  Man  of  Sin  ;  but  we  may  say  that 
St  Paul  found  the  idea  in  Jewish  tradition  and 
adapted  it  to  the  circumstances  of  the  epoch  in  which 
he  lived.  The  prophet  Daniel  already  knew  of  a 
man  who  was  to  raise  and  glorify  himself  above  all 
the  gods,  say  incredible  things  against  the  God  of 
gods,  and  prosper  until  wrath  was  accomplished 
(xi.  33).  Our  Lord  also  spoke  of  false  Christs,  of 
the  abomination  of  desolation  in  the  holy  place,  of 
false  prophets  who  should  seduce  many  (Matt.  xxiv.). 
This  belief  in  a  false  Messiah  was  common  among 
the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  (4  Esdras  v.  1-6  ; 
Apoc.  Bar.  xxxvi.-xl.  ;  Or.  Sibyll.  iii.  63 ;  Asc.  Isaias 
iii.  23  and  iv.  13) ;  it  was  common  also  among  the 
Early  Christians  (1  John  ii.  18-22  and  iv.  3 ;  2  John 
iv.  7  ;  Apoc.  xi.-xiii.).  On  these  traditional  ideas, 
which  might  seem  to  be  approaching  their  realisation 
in  St  Paul's  time,  when  Roman  Emperors  enjoyed 
divine  honours,  when  Caligula  had  ordered  his  statue 
to  be  erected  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  the  apostle 
built  up  the  edifice  of  his  eschatological  anticipations. 
Who  was  this   Man   of  Sin?     And  what  was  the 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  89 

power  that  delayed  him  ?  St  Paul  does  not  say. 
That  teaching  was  given  only  orally,  and  none  of 
the  suppositions  put  forward  up  to  the  present  are 
of  sufficient  probability  to  compel  our  assent  to  any 
of  them.  It  is,  however,  probable  that  for  St  Paul 
the  Man  of  Sin  was  a  false  Jewish  Messiah,  who 
would  act  with  all  the  power  of  Satan,  work  lying 
signs  and  wonders,  raise  himself  up  above  everything 
that  was  called  God,  established  himself  in  the 
Temple,  and  call  himself  God.  All  these  thoughts 
were  supplied  to  St  Paul  by  the  Bible  or  by  Jewish 
tradition ;  the  Man  of  Sin  or  rather  of  iniquity 
dvofjLia?  according  to  the  best  MSS.  appears  to  be  a 
translation  of  the  Jewish  Belial  whom  the  Apostle 
(2  Cor.  vi.  15)  represents  as  the  adversary  of  Christ. 
The  apostasy  that  must  come  before  he  can  be  re- 
vealed is  that  of  the  Jewish  people  who  having  put 
the  true  Messiah  to  death,  persecutes  the  Christians, 
and  thereby  opposes  the  designs  of  God.  Hence 
the  mystery  of  iniquity  was  already  at  work 
(2  Thess.  ii.).  What  delays  the  Man  of  Sin  from 
appearing  before  his  time  is  the  Roman  Empire  which 
at  that  time  protected  the  faithful  from  the  ill  will 
of  the  Jews.  Or  perhaps  that  Adversary  calling 
himself  God  was  the  temporal  Messiah  whom  the 
Jews  looked  for  at  that  time.  More  than  one  man 
did  in  reality  advance  claims  of  that  kind  at  that 
period.  And  yet  we  may  well  wonder  how  a  Jewish 
anti-Messiah  could  be  called  avofio?  a  word  which 
always  means  pagan  in  St  Paul  (Rom.  ii.  12  ;  1  Cor. 
ix.  21),  or  how  he  could  depart  so  far  from  the 
Jewish  spirit  as  to  call  himself  God. 

No  matter  what  interpretation  we  may  put  upon 
other  parts  of  the  prophecy,  we  must  always  hold 
that  what  delayed  the  Man  of  Sin  was  the  Roman 


90     BOOKS   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT 

Empire  Kare-^^ov  or  a  Roman  Emperor  Kare-xoov.  And 
so  this  epistle  must  find  its  date  before  the  reign  of 
Nero,  because  after  the  persecution  of  the  year  64 
no  one  can  say  that  the  Empire  protected  the 
Christians.  Besides  in  ii.  4  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem 
is  still  in  existence.  Therefore  the  personage  to 
whom  this  epistle  refers  originates  in  no  way  from 
any  popular  belief,  or  from  any  event  posterior  to 
the  death  of  the  Apostle.  And  this  disposes  of  the 
most  important  objection  to  the  pauline  origin  of  the 
second  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 


CHAPTER   III 

EPISTLES   TO  THE  CORINTHIANS 

St  Paul  remained  at  Corinth  after  writing  his 
epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  preaching  on  the 
Sabbath  day  in  the  synagogue,  persuading  Jews  and 
Greeks,  and  making  a  considerable  number  of  con- 
verts. After  a  stay  of  about  eighteen  months,  he 
sailed  from  Cenchra  to  Syria  with  Aquila  and 
Priscilla.  He  landed  at  Ephesus,  and  entering  the 
synagogue  spoke  to  the  Jews ;  they  desired  him  to 
tarry  with  them,  but  he  would  not  consent,  and  he 
departed  promising  to  return  to  them.  He  went  on 
by  sea  to  Cesarea,  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  salute 
the  Church,  and  then  continued  his  journey  to 
Antioch  (Acts  xviii.).  He  made  a  stay  there,  and 
then  travelled  through  Galatia — probably  through 
the  southern  part  of  the  province — and  through 
Phrygia.  He  reached  Ephesus,  found  there  some 
disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  baptised  them 
in  the  Name  of  Jesus.  During  three  months 
he  continued  boldly  speaking  in  the  synagogue 
and  endeavouring  to  convince  the  Jews.  But 
finding  that  they  were  obstinately  unwilling  to 
receive  the  faith,  he  separated  himself  from  them, 
took  the  disciples  to  the  school  of  one  named 
Tyrannus,  and  taught  them  there.  For  the  space 
of  two  years  all  Asia — Jews  as  well  as  Greeks — 
had  an  opportunity  of  hearing  the  word  of  the 
Lord  (Acts  xviii.). 
91 


92  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 


1.    DATE  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS 

It  was  in  55-58,  towards  the  end  of  his  stay  in 
Ephesus,  that  St  Paul  wrote  this  epistle  according 
to  our  calculation.  We  know  that  he  sent  Timothy 
to  Corihth  (1  Cor.  iv.  17),  and  from  Acts  xix.  22  we 
learn  that  it  was  when  he  was  about  to  leave  Ephesus 
that  he  sent  Timothy  and  Erastus  to  Macedonia. 
Moreover  he  says  (1  Cor.  xvi.  8)  that  he  will  remain 
at  Ephesus  until  Pentecost,  therefore  it  was  about 
Easter  time  when  this  letter  was  written,  and  this 
would  explain  the  allusion  to  Christ  our  Pasch  and 
the  exhortation  to  purge  out  the  old  leaven  (1  Cor.  v.). 
We  cannot  say  who  was  the  bearer.  It  may  be  that 
Stephanus,  Fortunatus  and  Achaicus,  Christians  from 
Corinth  who  had  gone  to  visit  the  apostle  at  Ephesus, 
took  back  the  epistle  when  they  returned  home. 


2.    STATE    OF    THE    CHURCH    AT    CORINTH 

St  Paul  tells  us  himself  (1  Cor.  iii.  6  and  iv.  16) 
that  he  was  the  founder  of  this  church,  nevertheless 
there  may  have  been  some  disciples — e.g.  Aquila  and 
Priscilla — in  the  city  on  his  first  arrival.  Corinth  the 
capital  of  Achaia  was  at  that  time  at  the  height  of 
its  splendour,  though  it  was  no  longer  the  old  Greek 
city  of  the  Bacchiades  and  the  Cypselides,  for  the 
headquarters  of  the  Acheian  League  had  been  abso- 
lutely destroyed  by  the  Consul  Mummius  in  146  a.c. 
A  hundred  years  later,  Julius  Cesar  rebuilt  it  and 
established  in  it  an  Italian  colony  that  consisted 
principally  of  freedmen,  but  in  a  short  time  great 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  93 

numbers  of  strangers  settled  in  it  attracted  to  it  by 
its  situation  between  two  seas :  the  Egean  and  the 
Adriatic,  which  made  it  a  natural  bond  of  union 
between  the  East  and  the  West.  Greeks,  Syrians, 
Egyptians  and  Jews  flocked  to  it,  all  those  who 
were  influenced  either  by  love  of  gain  or  by  love  of 
pleasure  were  attracted  to  Corinth  which  became 
one  of  the  most  densely  populated  cities  of  antiquity. 
Atheneus  in  the  first  century  says  that  it  contained 
as  many  as  460,000  slaves.  Its  morality  was  char- 
acterised by  the  most  unbridled  licence,  so  much  so 
that  the  name  of  Corinth  came  to  be  proverbially 
associated  with  the  utmost  refinements  of  corruption. 
The  temple  of  Venus  on  the  Acrocorinth  was  ren- 
dered famous  by  the  thousands  of  courtesans  that 
frequented  it. 

And  yet,  as  it  was  revealed  to  St  Paul  later  on  in 
a  dream  (Acts  xviii.  10),  God  possessed  in  that  city 
"much  people."  The  heterogeneous  qualities  of  the 
various  elements  of  the  population  made  of  the  city 
a  point  of  contact  where  the  new  faith  could  be  in 
touch  with  the  ancient  beliefs.  Christianity  found 
there  a  battlefield  for  its  struggle  both  against  Judaism 
and  against  Paganism,  and  it  found  there  also  a  site 
on  which  to  build  up  the  new  order  that  it  came  to 
establish  in  the  family  and  in  society. 

The  Apostle  immediately  set  about  his  work  in  his 
usual  way,  that  is  he  laboured  all  the  week  at  his 
trade  of  tent-maker,  and  on  the  Sabbath  he  preached 
in  the  synagogue.  We  learn  from  Acts  xviii.  4  that 
in  his  preaching  he  used  to  introduce  the  Name  of 
Jesus  and  that  he  addressed  himself  to  the  Jews  and 
to  the  Greeks.  Silas  and  Timothy  whom  he  had 
left  at  Thessalonica  rejoined  him  here.  The  subjects 
of  which  he  used  to  speak  were  :  the  principal  events 


94  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

of  the  life  of  Christ  (1  Cor.  xv.  iii.),  the  purpose  of 
His  Death,  the  nature  and  effect  of  justification  [ih. 
vi.  11),  our  union  in  the  mystical  body  of  Christ  (x. 
17),  the  indwelling  in  us  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (vi.  19), 
the  commemorative  meal  in  remembrance  of  the 
Death  of  the  Lord  (xi.  26),  the  conditions  required 
for  salvation ;  he  thus  made  known  to  them  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Christian  faith,  leaving  for  a  later  time 
the  deeper  and  more  mystical  parts  (iii.  2).  Among 
his  converts  were  Crispus  the  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, Erastus  the  treasurer  of  the  city,  Titus 
Justus,  Stephanas  and  his  family  the  first-fruits  of 
Achaia,  Caius,  Fortunatus,  Achaicus,  Chloe  from 
whose  house  the  news  came  to  St  Paul  that  made 
him  write  this  first  epistle  (i.  11),  Phoebe  a  deaconess 
of  the  church  at  Cenchra  (Rom.  xvi.  i.),  and  many 
others  whose  names  are  unknown  to  us.  The  Jews, 
angry  at  the  progress  made  by  St  Paul,  launched  an 
anathema  against  him.  In  reply  "  he  shook  his  gar- 
ments and  said  to  them :  Your  blood  be  upon  your 
own  heads :  I  am  clean ;  from  henceforth  I  will  go 
to  the  Gentiles  "  (Acts  xviii.  6).  He  then  went  out 
from  the  synagogue,  and  went  next  door,  into  the 
house  of  Titus  Justus  a  man  who  worshipped  God. 
From  that  time  forth  the  Christians  held  their  meet- 
ings in  that  house. 

These  meetings  took  place  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  Probably  there  were  two  meetings  on  that 
day :  one  in  the  morning  and  one  in  the  evening, 
because  how  else  can  we  understand  the  presence  of 
infidels  which  is  mentioned  (1  xiv.  23)  since  we  know 
that  they  cannot  have  been  admitted  to  participate 
of  the  Lord's  Supper?  There  must  therefore  have 
been  a  morning  meeting  exclusively  for  prayer  and 
preaching. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  95 

At  these  meetings  everyone  had  the  right  to  Hft 
up  his  voice  in  a  prayer,  or  a  hymn,  or  a  canticle,  or 
in  order  to  make  known  the  thoughts  suggested  to 
him  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  That  is  what  was  called 
prophesying  {ib.  xiv.  26).  Without  going  into  details 
we  may  say  that  in  apostolic  times  a  prophet  was  not 
necessarily  a  man  who  foretold  future  events,  anyone 
who  spoke  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  called  a  prophet. 

Other  members  of  the  congregation  moved  by  some 
overpowering  impulse  pronounced  indistinct  words, 
and  these  words  were  interpreted  by  those  who 
possessed  the  gift  of  tongues  (xiv.  2-12).  We  are 
not  able  to  say  for  certain  in  what  that  gift  consisted. 
The  tongue  that  was  spoken  was  not  a  foreign  lan- 
guage, since  there  were  some  among  the  faithful  who 
were  able  to  explain  (xiv.  27),  and  we  cannot  suppose 
that  in  so  small  a  congregation  there  were  people  qua- 
lified to  act  as  interpreters  for  all  foreign  languages. 
Whatever  the  true  explanation  may  be,  we  know 
that  with  a  wise  and  firm  man  to  rule,  these  gifts  of 
prophecy  and  of  tongues  contributed  to  the  general 
edification ;  whereas  when  a  church  was  left  to  itself, 
they  created  disorder  and  confusion.  While  St  Paul 
was  present  there  was  no  danger  of  confusion. 

At  the  evening  meeting,  after  a  meal  taken  in 
common,  and  after  hymns,  prayers  and  thanksgivings 
offered  up  by  the  prophets,  they  held  the  commemora- 
tion of  our  Lord's  Last  Supper  and  Death  in  the 
breaking  of  bread  and  in  the  chalice  of  wine,  and  all 
the  brethren  partook  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  (1  xi.  26). 

The  Christians  increased  daily  in  number.  The 
Jews  being  angered  by  this  brought  St  Paul  before 
the  tribunal  of  the  Roman  proconsul  Lucius  Junius 


96  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Annajus  Gallio  a  brother  of  Seneca,  and  accused  him 
of  exciting  the  people  to  adore  God  in  a  manner  that 
was  contrary  to  the  Law.  St  Paul  was  about  to 
begin  to  speak  in  his  own  defence,  when  the  proconsul 
spoke  as  follows  to  the  Jews  :  "  If  it  were  some  matter 
of  injustice  or  a  heinous  deed,  I  should  with  reason 
bear  with  you.  But  if  they  be  questions  of  word, 
and  names,  and  of  your  Law,  look  you  to  it,  I  will 
not  be  judge  of  such  things.  And  he  drove  them 
from  the  judgment  seat."  Then  the  Greeks,  who 
hated  the  Jews,  laid  hold  of  Sosthenes  the  ruler  of 
the  synagogue  and  beat  him  before  the  judgment 
seat,  and  Gallio  cared  for  none  of  these  things.  After 
this  St  Paul  was  able  to  continue  the  work  of  his 
apostolate  without  hindrance,  and  he  stayed  in  Corinth 
"  yet  many  days." 

The  converts  were  both  from  Judaism  and  from 
Paganism,  but  those  from  Paganism  formed  the 
majority  (1  Cor.  vii.  18;  Rom.  xvi.  21).  The  number 
is  unknown  to  us,  but  it  cannot  have  been  great,  since 
the  meetings  were  held  in  a  private  house  (Acts  xvii. 
7 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  19).  There  were  among  them  some 
philosophers,  men  fond  of  discussions  and  of  science, 
as  we  gather  from  what  St  Paul  says  of  those  who 
seek  human  wisdom  {ih.  i.  18-30).  Some  were  rich, 
as  we  understand  from  their  behaviour  at  the  meal  in 
common  (xi.  21),  but  they  formed  only  a  minority 
(i.  26).  There  were  slaves  among  them,  and  even 
men  addicted  to  the  most  shameful  vices  {ib.  vi. 
9-10). 

It  is  difficult  to  say  for  certain  to  what  extent  the 
church  of  Corinth  was  organised  when  these  epistles 
were  written.  To  judge  from  the  twelfth  chapter,  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  in  that  period  of  transition 
which   is   described   in  the  Didache  where  apostles, 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  97 

prophets  and  doctors  are  the  leaders  of  the  community ; 
there  is  no  mention  of  bishop  or  deacon  such  as  we 
find  in  later  epistles  (Philip,  i.  1 ;  Tim.  iii.  1-12).  The 
part  taken  in  public  worship  by  certain  members  of 
the  congregation,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  en- 
dowed with  supernatural  gifts,  seems  to  have  caused 
disorder  and  to  have  been  the  occasion  of  the  first 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

The  moral  and  religious  state  of  this  community, 
made  up  of  Jews  and  Greeks  in  proportions  not  de- 
finitely known  to  us,  made  up  of  persons  of  every  condi- 
tion in  life  and  of  every  degree  of  intellectual  culture, 
was  sufficiently  complex.  The  praise  bestowed  by 
St  Paul  on  the  saints  of  Corinth  '•  who  have  been 
made  rich  in  Christ  in  all  things  in  all  utterance  and 
in  all  knowledge"  (i.  5)  proves  that  divine  grace  had 
produced  great  results  ;  and  yet  {ib.  iii.  1 )  he  goes  on 
to  speak  of  them  as  "  not  spiritual  but  carnal."  More- 
over the  condition  in  which  we  find  this  church  within 
two  years  of  the  departure  of  the  apostle,  shows  that 
grace  had  not  completely  superseded  nature.  The 
two  epistles  to  the  Corinthians  manifest  both  the  good 
natural  points  and  the  natural  defects  of  the  Jews 
and  of  the  Greeks  who  were  members  of  this  church. 

The  Jews,  even  after  their  conversion,  were  deeply 
attached  to  the  Mosaic  Law.  This  was  what  had 
made  them  a  nation,  and  however  great  the  change 
in  their  belief,  the  love  of  the  Law  never  left  them. 
They  therefore  fell  easily  under  the  influence  of  their 
feUow-countrymen,  Judeo-Christians,  who  came  from 
Antioch  bearing  letters  of  recommendation. 

The  Greeks,  fickle,  disputatious,  full  of  party  spirit, 
soon  gave  free  play  to  these  congenital  defects.  Some 
of  them  even  went  back  to  their  pagan  habits  and  to 
impurity  which  was  so  common  in  Greece  and  above 

G 


98  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

all  in  Corinth.  One  of  them  lived  with  his  father's 
wife — a  crime  unknown  even  among  the  pagans — 
perhaps  in  the  father's  lifetime.  Yet  such  was  the 
confusion  of  thought  in  the  church  that  no  one 
protested  against  this  scandal,  and  this  incestuous 
Corinthian  continued  to  partake  of  the  sacred  banquet 
without  anyone  suggesting  that  he  ought  to  be  obliged 
to  put  away  the  partner  of  his  guilt  (v.  1-3).  The 
Lord's  Supper  itself  was  before  long  transformed,  and 
became  one  of  those  festival  banquets  so  well  known 
among  the  Greeks  (xi.  20).  In  the  church  in  Jeru- 
salem, where  everyone  had  sold  his  property  for  the 
benefit  of  the  community,  the  food  was  the  same 
for  everyone ;  but  among  the  Greeks,  at  the  public 
meals,  in  the  symposia  phiUca,  each  one  ate  what  he 
brought  with  him  ;  and  this  custom  was  copied  by  the 
Christians  at  Corinth :  the  rich  brought  good  food  in 
plenty  and  kept  it  for  themselves,  whereas  the  poor 
had  to  content  themselves  with  scanty  fare ;  one 
man  was  hungry  and  another  was  drunk  {ib.  xi.  21). 
Therefore  says  the  Apostle  "  there  are  many  infirm 
and  weak  among  you  and  many  sleep  "  (xi.  30). 

Women  among  the  Greeks  were  shut  out  from 
pubUc  life,  confined  to  the  gyneceum,  and  admitted 
only  to  family  worship.  They  found  in  the  liberty 
of  the  Christian  meetings  an  opportunity  of  freeing 
themselves  from  the  irksome  state  of  inferiority  im- 
posed upon  them  by  custom  :  they  were  present  with 
their  heads  unveiled,  they  prophesied,  they  had 
ecstasies,  they  recited  prayers  and  hymns  aloud  {ih. 
xiv.  34  and  xi.  5). 

Finally,  the  natural  eloquence  of  the  Greeks  found 
an  outlet  in  an  abundance  of  spiritual  gifts,  especially 
in  preaching,  which  soon  transformed  the  Christian 
assemblies    into  public    clubs.     Some   prayed,   some 


OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT  99 

sang  hymns  or  canticles,  others  preached  several  at 
once,  then  suddenly  some  rose  in  a  state  of  inspiration 
and  spoke  confused  and  inarticulate  words.  And  the 
disorder  became  so  great,  that  strangers  who  went  in 
thought  themselves  to  be  in  an  assembly  of  madmen 
{ib.  xiv.  23). 

To  all  these  interior  ferments,  we  must  add  the 
exterior  elements  of  discord.  After  St  Paul's  de- 
parture there  came  to  Corinth  a  Jew  from  Alexandria 
named  Apollos  of  whom  Aquila  and  Priscilla  had 
made  a  convert  in  Ephesus  (Acts  xviii.  26).  He  was 
eloquent  and  well  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures. 
He  rendered  great  services  to  the  faithful  in  Corinth 
{ib.  xviii.  27)  because  he  vigorously  attacked  the 
Jews  in  public,  proving  from  the  Scriptures  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah  foretold  by  the  prophets  {ih. 
28).  His  elegant  style  of  public  speaking,  and  his 
acquaintance  with  the  Alexandrian  exegesis,  com- 
pelled the  Corinthians  to  institute  a  comparison 
between  him  and  the  founder  of  their  church ;  so 
much  so,  that  although  Apollos  was  far  from  wish- 
ing to  take  anything  away  from  the  influence  of  the 
Apostle,  he  did  unconsciously  undermine  his  authority. 

Some  Judaising  Christians  probably  also  penetrated 
into  Corinth,  and  introduced  doctrines  at  variance 
with  those  of  the  Apostle,  and  contributed  to  division 
and  dissension. 

In  this  way  arose  those  parties  of  which  St  Paul 
says :  "  It  has  been  signified  to  me,  my  brethren,  of 
you  .  .  .  that  there  are  contentions  among  you  .  .  . 
everyone  of  you  saith :  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of 
Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ"  (1  i.  11). 

There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  the  nature 
and  number  of  these  parties :  were  there  two,  or 
three,  or  four  ?     St  John  Chrysostom  thinks  that  St 


100  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Paul  makes  use  here  of  representative  names  in  order 
to  avoid  mentioning  the  real  chiefs  of  the  parties. 
The  word  a-xicrfxara  (i.  10)  does  not  mean  schisms  in 
the  technical  and  later  sense  in  which  we  speak  of 
schisms,  it  means  the  same  as  epiSeg  (i.  11),  and  these 
are  the  school  differences  so  common  among  the 
Greeks :  some  disciples  attaching  themselves  to  one 
master,  some  to  another.  There  was  no  real  rupture, 
otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  general  meeting 
of  the  faithful  {ib.  xi.  18  and  xiv.  23),  nor  could  the 
Apostle  have  addressed  his  admonitions  to  the  whole 
body  of  the  Corinthian  Christians. 

We  know  from  what  we  have  explained  above 
who  were  the  partisans  of  Paul  and  Apollos.  But 
who  were  those  of  Cephas  and  Christ  ?  Were  the 
partisans  of  Cephas  converts  made  by  St  Peter  ? 
Possibly  there  were  at  Corinth  some  Jews  who  had 
visited  Jerusalem  and  listened  to  the  preaching  of 
St  Peter.  But  we  cannot  accept  the  testimony  of 
Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth,  to  the  effect  that  Peter 
and  Paul  were  joint  founders  of  the  church  of  Corinth. 
St  Paul  (1  iv.  15)  claims  to  be  the  sole  founder,  and 
makes  no  allusion  anywhere  to  any  stay  of  St  Peter 
in  the  city,  though  this  silence  does  not  exclude  the 
possibility  of  his  having  paid  a  visit  to  it.  Probably 
these  partisans  of  Cephas  were  men  who  had  been  in 
communication  with  Palestinian  Jews,  and  had  heard 
that  Peter  was  the  chief  of  the  apostles,  and  the  one 
to  whom  Christ  had  given  the  power  of  confirming 
his  brethren.  For  the  time  being  however  they 
were  not  in  direct  opposition  to  St  Paul,  nor  did  they 
attempt  to  impose  upon  their  brethren  the  burden  of 
the  Law  of  Moses  or  in  particular  of  circumcision ; 
for  if  they  had  made  any  such  attempt  the  Apostle 
would  no  doubt  have  made  some  reference  to  it  in 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         101 

this  epistle.  It  is  possible  also  that  these  partisans 
of  Cephas  were  Judeo- Christians  who  opposed  the 
apostolic  power  of  Peter  to  that  of  Paul.  No  danger 
arose  at  this  time  from  this  opposition.  But  we  shall 
see  that  the  case  was  different  at  the  time  of  the 
second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

As  for  those  who  claimed  to  belong  to  Christ,  it  is 
difficult  to  say  who  they  were.  Mayerhoff  says  that 
the  formula :  "  I  am  of  Christ "  was  one  that  St  Paul 
adopted  for  himself,  Cornely  and  Bleek  say  that 
this  was  the  formula  of  a  faithful  Christian.  If  that 
is  so,  then  there  was  no  separate  party  of  Christ's, 
and  Clement  of  Rome  (Cor.  47,  1)  appears  not  to 
have  known  of  such  a  party,  though  his  testimony 
cannot  be  taken  as  decisive  because  his  argument 
did  not  require  that  he  should  make  any  mention  of 
Christ.  However  the  Fathers  recognise  no  more 
than  three  parties  in  Corinth.  This  interpretation  is 
not  grammatically  correct ;  the  obvious  meaning  of 
what  St  Paul  writes  is  that  those  who  say  :  "I  am  of 
Christ "  are  on  the  same  footing  as  the  others.  There- 
fore they  formed  a  fourth  party.  And  this  is  the 
generally  received  view  among  the  modern  writers. 

We  can  understand  how  this  party  arose,  it  came 
from  the  faithful  being  disheartened  by  preferences 
for  this  man  or  that  when  duty  required  attachment 
to  Christ  alone.  This  view  cannot  in  itself  be  worthy 
of  blame,  but  these  adherents  of  Christ  seem  to  have 
put  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  rest  of  the  faithful 
and  to  have  claimed  to  depend  on  God  alone.  They 
came  in  time  to  be  the  inost  dangerous  party,  and  we 
shall  see  in  the  second  epistle  how  vigorously  the 
Apostle  had  to  resist  them. 

Various  suppositions  have  been  put  forward  to 
explain  how  these  Christians  could  claim  to  belong 


102  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

to  Christ  and  to  be  independent  of  the  Apostles. 
Schenkel  holds  that  they  claimed  to  be  directly  in 
connection  with  Christ  by  means  of  supernatural 
visions,  Hilgenfeld  and  Holsten  say  that  they  were 
of  the  number  of  the  seventy  disciples  or  of  the 
brethren  of  the  Lord  who  were  engaged  in  preaching 
the  Gospel  (1  Cor.  ix.  5),  Baur  says  that  they  were 
Judaising  Christians  from  Palestine  who  had  perhaps 
seen  the  Lord,  Reuss  and  Weiss  say  that  they  went 
beyond  the  party  of  Cephas  in  wishing  to  impose 
upon  the  Pagans  the  Mosaic  Law,  according  to  Godet 
they  made  a  distinction  between  Jesus  and  the  Christ, 
they  believed  the  former  to  have  been  accursed  and 
crucified,  and  the  latter  to  have  been  a  divine  being 
who  came  down  from  heaven  upon  Jesus  at  His 
Baptism. 

However  all  this  may  be,  and  whatever  may  have 
been  the  origin  of  these  parties,  they  created  no 
dogmatic  differences.  The  Apostle  nowhere  re- 
proaches the  Corinthians  with  differences  in  belief, 
he  speaks  only  of  personal  differences. 

The  state  of  things  at  Corinth  became  known  to 
St  Paul  in  various  ways,  and  especially  by  means  of  a 
letter  in  which  the  Corinthians  consulted  him  on  a 
number  of  points.  We  learn  from  1  Cor.  v.  9  that 
he  had  written  to  them  an  epistle,  which  is  now  lost, 
condemning  the  conduct  of  those  Christians  who 
practised  pagan  vices,  and  commanding  them  to  hold 
no  communion  with  these  guilty  ones.  The  answer 
of  the  Corinthians  to  that  letter  showed  him  that  they 
had  misinterpreted  it,  and  had  given  too  wide  an 
extension  to  his  prohibition  of  intercourse  with  the 
wicked.  They  thought  that  if  a  Christian  was  to 
hold  no  connnunication  with  libertines,  he  would  have 
to  leave  this  world.     How  then  were  they  to  behave 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         103 

towards  their  fellow-citizens  who  were  Pagans  ?    And 
they  asked  questions  also  as  to  matrimony,  celibacy, 
meats   offered   to   idols,   the   gifts   of  prophecy  and 
languages,   and  the  resurrection  of  the  body.     We 
have  no  difficulty  in  understanding  how  they  came  to 
feel  the  necessity  of  consulting  him  on  all  these  matters, 
for  questions  like  these  were  bound  to  come  up  for  de- 
cision while  Christians  dwelt  in  the  midst  of  Pagans. 
Finally  he  had  preached  to  them  the  Resurrection 
of  Christ,  he  had  told  them  that  the  form  of  this  world 
would  pass  away  and  that  soon  the  Lord  would  come 
again.    The  Early  Christians  lived  on  the  hope  of  this. 
They  considered  that  everything  ought  perhaps  to  be 
regulated  with   a  view  to  this   future   event.     Was 
it  right  then  for  a  man  to  enter  into  the  bonds  of 
wedlock  ?    Ought  not  those  who  were  married  to  live 
as  if  they  were  unmarried  ?    Might  one  still  take  part 
in  the  feasts  and  solemnities  of  the  tribe  or  the  city  to 
which  one  belonged  ?     Were  the  poor  who  had  lived 
on  meats  that  had  been  offered  to  idols  obliged  to 
abstain   from  participating   in  the  viscerationes   and 
thus  to  give  up  their  means  of  livelihood  ?     Was  it 
lawful  to  buy  meat  in  the  public  market  ?     For  that 
involved  the  risk  of  buying  what  had  been  sacrificed 
to  idols.     All  these  questions  were  difficulties  at  that 
time.     But  the  greatest   source  of  anxiety  for   the 
Christians  was  the  fate  of  their  deceased  relatives. 
They  being  dead  would  not  witness  the  Coming  of 
the  Messiah  in  His  glory,  in  the  clouds,  at  the  sound 
of  the  trumpet.    How  could  they  come  to  life  and  be 
clothed  again  with  their  bodies  ?     Since  the  philo- 
sophers said  that  matter  is  always  in  motion  and  that 
what  one  human  body  consists  of  at  one  time  may  at 
some  other  time  enter  into  the  composition  of  other 
human    bodies.      Is    the    resurrection    of  the    body 


104  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

possible  then  ?  And  lastly  they  consulted  the  Apostle 
as  to  the  manner  of  making  the  collection  for  the 
saints  in  Jerusalem  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1). 

What  we  have  said  brings  before  us  a  picture  of 
the  disorder  and  disquietude  that  afflicted  the  church 
of  Corinth  three  years  after  St  Paul's  departure  from 
it.  He  was  solicitous  for  all  the  churches  that  he  had 
founded,  and  was  well  aware  of  all  this ;  information 
came  to  him  in  many  ways :  some  of  it  came  from 
the  house  of  Chlce,  some  perhaps  from  Apollos  who 
as  we  gather  from  1  xvi.  12  had  left  Corinth  and 
gone  to  Ephesus  on  purpose  to  escape  from  those 
miserable  squabbles  and  jealousies,  and  some  perhaps 
from  Stephanas,  Fortunatus  and  Achaicus  who  went 
to  Ephesus  when  Apollos  was  already  there,  and 
were  probably  bearers  of  a  letter  from  the  Corinthians. 

To  provide  a  remedy  for  these  evils,  St  Paul 
decided  to  send  Timothy  to  Corinth  (1  iv.  17),  but 
being  uncertain  whether  his  messenger  would  meet 
with  a  good  reception,  he  determined  to  write  this 
letter  first.  He  wished  not  to  go  to  Corinth  himself 
yet,  lest  he  should  find  himself  under  the  necessity  of 
taking  severe  measures.  But  he  was  bound  to  send 
answers  to  the  questions  that  had  reached  him,  and  he 
was  bound  also  to  take  energetic  measures  against  the 
disorders  that  prevailed  in  Corinth.  That  was  the 
object  of  the  letter  of  which  we  are  now  about  to 
make  a  resume. 


3.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 
CORINTHIANS 

After  saluting  them  and  wishing  them  grace  (i.  1-9) 
he  treats  of  three  things  :  morals  or  discipline,  public 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         105 

worship,  and  dogma.  From  i.  10  to  vi.  20  he  devotes 
himself  to  the  correction  of  abuses,  then  from  the 
beginning  of  the  seventh  chapter  to  the  end  of  the 
fifteenth  he  answers  their  questions,  and  the  sixteenth 
and  last  chapter  contains  personal  information  and 
forms  the  conclusion.  Others  divide  the  epistle 
otherwise.     But  this  is  the  division  that  we  adopt. 

Prologue  {\.  1-10). — Paul  the  Apostle  and  Sosthenes 
a  brother  salute  the  church  of  Corinth.  He  thanks 
God  for  the  manifestation  of  His  grace  among  the 
Corinthians,  and  bears  testimony  that  they  are  rich  in 
all  knowledge,  while  they  wait  for  the  manifestation 
of  the  Lord,  and  he  hopes  that  they  will  be  found 
without  blame  on  the  last  day. 

Correction  of  abuses. — He  denounces  the  parties 
and  the  factions  which  divide  them,  he  establishes  his 
own  apostohc  position  so  that  he  may  be  able  to 
speak  with  authority,  he  shows  the  absurdity  of  their 
ranging  themselves  under  chiefs :  Paul,  Apollos, 
Cephas,  as  if  Christ  were  divided,  or  as  if  they  had 
been  baptised  in  the  name  of  Paul,  he  congratulates 
himself  on  having  baptised  very  few  of  them  for  thus 
they  cannot  say  that  they  were  baptised  in  his  name. 

He  declares  that  he  had  been  sent  by  Christ  to 
preach  the  Gospel  and  not  to  baptise.  Then  he  goes 
on  to  show  how  the  Gospel  has  to  be  preached :  not 
in  the  wisdom  of  words  lest  the  power  of  the  Cross 
be  made  void,  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  folly  since 
it  had  failed  to  make  God  known  to  the  world,  and 
as  wisdom  failed  it  had  pleased  God  to  save  men  by 
the  folly  of  the  Cross.  Hence  he  would  not  know 
anything  among  them  except  Christ  crucified.  Never- 
theless the  Gospel  is  not  folly  but  wisdom,  and  this 
wisdom  is  to  be  spoken  of  among  the  perfect.  The 
Corinthians  were  still  infants  in  this  respect,  and  he 


106  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

fed  them  on  milk.  He  sends  Timothy  to  them  to 
recall  them  to  the  way  of  Christ ;  and  promises  to 
go  to  them  soon  himself,  ending  with  these  words : 
"  What  do  you  want  ?  that  I  shall  come  to  you  with 
a  rod  or  with  love  ?  " 

The  incestuous  Coiinthiaii  (v.  1-8). — The  pagans 
themselves  would  not  tolerate  a  man  like  this.  Yet 
the  Corinthians  were  proud.  Whereas  they  should 
have  wept  and  cast  this  man  out.  Let  them  now 
purge  out  this  old  leaven.  In  verse  11  he  refers  to 
his  former  letter,  and  explains  that  he  had  told  them 
not  to  have  no  intercourse  with  the  wicked,  for  that 
cannot  be  avoided  in  this  world,  but  to  have  no  inter- 
course with  brethren  who  are  wicked. 

Lawsuits  between  brethren. — He  condemns  recourse 
to  pagan  tribunals.  There  should  be  no  injustice 
among  the  Christians.  But  if  there  is  any,  it  should 
be  settled  without  going  to  the  public  tribunals.  Is 
there  no  one  among  them  wise  enough  to  decide 
these  cases  ?  Do  they  not  know  that  the  saints  are 
to  judge  the  world  and  the  angels  ? 

Impurity. — He  returns  to  this  subject  again,  in 
order  to  give  the  correct  meaning  of  a  maxim  that 
they  seem  to  have  taken  in  a  false  meaning :  "  All 
things  are  lawful  to  me,"  a  maxim  which  they  may 
have  learned  from  his  own  lips.  In  matters  of  food, 
all  things  are  indifferent.  But  it  is  not  so  with  the 
body,  for  it  is  not  made  for  impurity  but  for  the 
Lord.  Their  bodies  are  members  of  Christ,  Will 
they  take  the  members  of  Christ  and  make  them 
members  of  a  harlot  ? 

Answers  to  questions  on  Marriage  and  Celibacy. — 
He  praises  celibacy  in  preference  to  matrimony,  but 
he  advises  them  to  marry  so  as  to  avoid  fornication  ; 
he  explains  the  duties  of  married  persons,  and  again 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         107 

advises  the  unmarried  and  widows  not  to  marry. 
He  lays  it  down  that  the  Lord  forbids  the  separation 
of  those  who  are  married,  ev^n  when  the  one  is  a 
Christian  and  the  other  a  pagan ;  but  if  the  pagan 
insists  on  divorce,  then  the  Christian  is  free,  because 
we  are  not  slaves  in  these  matters,  and  God  has 
called  us  in  peace.  What  he  ordains  in  all  the 
churches  is  that  every  man  is  to  walk  as  God  has 
called  him :  the  circumcised  are  to  remain  circum- 
cised, the  uncircumcised  uncircumcised,  the  slave  a 
slave,  etc.  Then  he  returns  to  the  question  of  celi- 
bacy. He  has  no  commandment  from  the  Lord,  but 
he  advises  virgins  to  remain  as  they  are  on  account  of 
the  calamity  that  is  imminent.  Time  is  short.  The 
form  of  this  world  is  passing  away.  Let  them  be 
free  from  care.  Married  persons  are  not  free  from 
care,  they  have  to  please  one  another.  A  woman  is 
tied  as  long  as  her  husband  lives,  if  he  dies  she  is 
free,  she  may  marry  again  in  the  Lord.  But  he 
advises  her  not  to  marry.  And  he  thinks  that  he 
too  has  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Meats  sacrificed  to  idols. — We  all  know  that  idols 
are  nothing,  and  that  there  is  no  God  but  One.  But 
knowledge  pufFeth  up,  charity  buildeth  up.  If  one 
who  is  enlightened  is  seen  sitting  at  table  in  the 
temple  of  an  idol,  he  may  scandalise  one  who  is  not 
enlightened  enough  to  know  that  the  idol  is  nothing, 
and  the  unenlightened  man  may  perish  by  the  know- 
ledge of  the  one  who  is  enlightened.  Then  the  latter 
sins  against  his  brother  and  against  Christ.  Paul 
would  never  eat  meat  again  if  thereby  he  made  a 
brother  fall. 

From  this  he  passes  on  to  other  similar  thoughts. 
He  shows  by  his  own  example  that  our  conduct 
towards  others  should  be  ruled  by  the  principle  of 


108  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

brotherly  love.  He  has  given  up  his  rights  in  order 
to  place  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  Gospel :  Is 
he  not  free  ?  Is  he  not  an  apostle  ?  Has  he  not 
seen  Jesus  Christ  ?  Then  he  had  a  right  to  be  sup- 
ported at  their  expense,  to  take  about  with  him  a 
woman  a  sister  like  the  other  apostles,  and  was  not 
bound  to  work  with  his  hands.  But  he  gave  up 
these  rights,  and  he  mentions  them  not  in  order  to 
obtain  them,  for  it  would  be  better  for  him  to  die 
than  to  be  deprived  of  this  glory.  The  reward 
that  he  seeks  is  the  gratuitous  preaching  of  the 
Gospel. 

After  showing  in  what  way  he  carried  out  the 
work  of  the  apostolate,  he  goes  on  to  show  what  use 
he  makes  of  his  liberty.  He  makes  himself  the  slave 
of  all :  a  Jew  to  the  Jews,  under  the  law  with  those 
who  are  under  the  law,  without  law  though  he  is 
under  the  law  of  Christ  to  those  who  are  without 
law,  feeble  with  the  feeble,  all  to  all,  in  order  to  save 
some. 

He  quotes  the  example  of  the  Israelites  who  were 
baptised  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  ate  of  spiritual 
food,  drank  of  a  spiritual  rock,  and  yet  with  most  of 
them  God  was  not  well  pleased.  All  this  happened 
to  them  for  our  instruction :  in  order  that  we  might 
not  commit  bad  actions  or  fall  into  idolatry.  "  He 
that  thinketh  himself  to  stand  let  him  take  heed  lest 
he  fall." 

Then  he  goes  back  to  the  meats  sacrificed  to  idols. 
He  appeals  to  them  as  intelligent  men  (x.  15).  They 
participate  in  the  body  of  Christ  by  the  breaking  of 
bread  and  by  the  drinking  of  the  chalice.  Israel 
participates  of  the  altar  in  eating  of  the  sacrifices. 
He  does  not  mean  that  an  idol  is  anything.  But 
that   the   sacrifices   of   the   Gentiles   are   offered   to 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         109 

demons.  He  wishes  them  not  to  be  partakers  with 
demons. 

This  again  brings  him  back  to  the  saying :  *'  All 
things  are  lawful  to  me."  The  rule  means  that  we 
must  look  not  to  our  own  advantage  but  to  that 
of  others.  They  may  buy  meat  in  the  market  with- 
out inquiring  where  it  comes  from,  and  if  a  pagan 
gives  them  an  invitation  they  may  eat  what  is  put 
before  them ;  but  if  someone  warns  them  that  the 
meats  have  been  offered  to  idols  they  must  not  eat 
of  them  to  spare  the  conscience  of  the  man  who  gave 
the  warning.  And  whether  they  eat,  or  drink,  or 
whatsoever  else  they  do,  they  must  do  all  for  the 
glory  of  God,  giving  no  scandal  to  Jews  or  Greeks 
or  to  the  Church 

Public  Worship. — He  begins  by  praising  them  for 
keeping  the  traditions  that  he  left  with  them  (xi.  2). 
Christ  is  the  head  of  man,  man  is  the  head  of  woman. 
A  man  must  pray  with  head  uncovered,  a  woman 
with  her  head  covered  on  account  of  the  angels.  He 
puts  forward  several  arguments  in  support  of  this 
rule,  and  finally  (xi.  16)  lays  it  down  simply  that  as 
a  fact  such  is  the  custom  of  the  churches. 

Abuses  at  the  comvion  meal  and  at  the  Eucharist. 
— He  cannot  praise  them  for  their  conduct  at  their 
meetings.  Even  there  they  are  divided.  At  the 
meal  they  show  contempt  for  the  church,  each  one 
eating  separately  what  he  has  brought.  He  gives 
an  account  of  the  Institution  of  the  H.  Eucharist. 
And  warns  them  to  partake  of  it  worthily. 

The  spiritual  gifts. — The  gifts  are  enumerated  in 
the  twelfth  chapter,  their  value  is  stated  in  the 
thirteenth,  and  the  rules  for  the  exercise  of  them 
are  given  in  the  fourteenth.  The  gifts  are  :  the  word 
of  wisdom,  of  science,  faith,  the  power  of  healing, 


no  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

the  working  of  miracles,  prophecy,  discernment  of 
spirits,  the  gift  of  languages,  interpretation.  All 
these  are  the  gifts  of  one  spirit  and  are  necessary  in 
order  that  the  Christians  may  be  formed  into  one 
body.  The  members  of  this  body  have  not  all  the 
same  functions  :  the  first  place  belongs  to  the  apostles, 
the  second  to  prophets,  the  third  to  teachers,  and 
then  follow  those  to  whom  the  other  gifts  have  been 
given.  Charity  is  however  greater  than  all  the  gifts 
and  greater  than  faith  or  hope.  In  the  exercise  of 
the  gifts,  charity  must  not  suffer,  edification  must 
be  kept  in  view,  everything  must  be  done  in  order, 
only  one  may  speak  at  a  time. 

Resuri'ection  of  the  Dead  (xv.  1-58). — He  reminds 
them  how  he  preached  to  them  that  Christ  died  and 
rose  again.  That  is  what  the  apostles  preach,  what 
he  preaches,  and  what  they  have  believed.  Then  how 
can  some  of  them  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection 
of  the  dead  ?  For  if  there  is  no  resurrection,  Christ 
is  not  risen,  and  their  preaching  and  their  faith 
are  empty.  If  our  hope  is  confined  to  this  life,  we  are 
the  most  miserable  of  men.  But  Christ  is  risen. 
He  is  the  first-fruits  of  the  dead.  As  in  Adam  all 
men  die,  so  in  Christ  all  men  shall  come  to  life  again. 
Death  shall  be  destroyed.  All  things  shall  be  subject 
to  the  Son,  and  the  Son  Himself  will  be  subject  to 
God,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all. 

Further  arguments  in  favour  of  the  resurrection  are 
drawn  from  the  baptisms  for  the  dead,  from  his  own 
sufferings  and  dangers,  and  from  his  battle  with  wild 
beasts  at  Ephesus. 

Lastly  he  puts  the  question  :  In  what  kind  of  body 
will  the  dead  rise  again  ?  And  he  answers  it  by 
natural  comparisons  showing  how  different  the  body 
of  a  plant  is  from  the  seed  out  of  which  it  springs, 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         111 

and  how  different  is  the  flesh  of  animals  and  men,  and 
how  great  a  difference  there  is  between  terrestrial 
and  heavenly  bodies.  So  our  bodies  are  sown  animal 
and  corruptible,  but  will  rise  spiritual  and  incor- 
ruptible. 

Epilogue  (xvi.  1-34). — He  ordains  how  the  col- 
lection for  the  church  in  Jerusalem  is  to  be  made. 
The  Corinthians  are  to  do  what  is  done  by  the 
Galatians :  everyone  is  on  Sundays  to  set  aside  his 
offering,  so  as  not  to  make  the  collection  on  his 
arrival.  He  will  pass  through  Macedonia  and  make  a 
stay  at  Corinth,  but  now  he  remains  at  Ephesus  until 
Pentecost.  Let  them  receive  Timothy  with  honour 
if  he  goes  to  Corinth.  ApoUos  refuses  at  present  to 
go  there.  Let  them  show  deference  towards  those 
who  devote  themselves  to  the  service  of  the  saints. 
Salutations  from  the  churches  of  Asia,  from  various 
brethren,  and  his  own  salutation  in  his  own  hand- 
writing. 


4.    INTERVAL  BETWEEN  THE  FIRST  AND  SECOND 
EPISTLE 

The  first  epistle  did  not  produce  the  good  result 
that  St  Paul  desired.  The  majority  of  the  Corinthians 
seem  to  have  been  touched  by  his  warnings  and  re- 
proaches, but  there  was  a  considerable  number  of 
them  who  refused  to  listen  to  him  and  who  continued 
to  question  his  apostolic  authority.  It  is  not  easy  for 
us  to  say  exactly  what  happened  between  these  two 
epistles,  for  the  documents  leave  room  for  more  than 
one  combination.  We  will  put  before  the  reader  the 
supposition  that  we  find  most  complicated,  and  from 
a  discussion  of  the  facts,  we  hope  to  arrive  at  one  that 


112  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

is  less  complicated.     It  will  be  seen  that  the  events 
are  practically  identical  in  both  the  suppositions. 

It  is  probable  that  Timothy  made  known  to  St 
Paul  the  eifect  produced  by  his  letter  upon  the 
Corinthians.  For  (Acts  xix.  22)  Timothy  and 
Erastus  were  sent  by  St  Paul  to  Macedonia,  and 
perhaps  the  former  went  to  Corinth  (1  Cor.  xvi.  10), 
then  returning  to  Ephesus  he  explained  to  the  apostle 
the  state  of  things  at  Corinth.  Whoever  it  was  that 
brought  the  bad  news,  St  Paul  would  seem  to  have 
gone  to  Corinth,  the  visit  caused  him  sorrow  (2  Cor. 
ii.  1)  and  some  adversary  grievously  offended  him 
(ib.  ii.  2-11  and  vii.  12).  Then  he  went  on  to  Mace- 
donia and  waited  in  vain  for  better  news  from 
Corinth  ;  as  none  came,  he  wrote  to  them  a  severe 
letter  with  great  sorrow  and  with  many  tears ;  and 
Titus  seems  to  have  been  the  bearer  of  the  letter. 
St  Paul  waited  at  Ephesus  for  the  return  of  his 
messenger,  but  being  driven  out  by  the  popular 
tumult  organised  by  Demetrius,  he  went  to  preach 
the  Gospel  in  Troas  ;  not  finding  Titus  there,  he  went 
on  to  Macedonia  where  he  found  no  rest  within  or 
without  {ib.  vii.  5)  until  he  was  consoled  by  the 
arrival  of  Titus  {ib.  vii.  6)  who  told  him  of  the  longing 
and  loyalty  of  the  Corinthians  for  him.  They  had 
received  Titus  with  docility  and  fear.  They  were 
filled  with  sorrow  and  repentance  (vii.  8-16).  They 
had  punished  the  man  who  had  opposed  him  (2  Cor. 
ii.  5-11).  Still  opposition  was  not  altogether  at  an 
end,  those  who  called  themselves  the  partisans  of 
Christ  had  not  laid  down  their  arms  and  continued  to 
deny  the  apostolic  authority  of  St  Paul.  In  order  to 
put  an  end  to  this  resistance,  and  to  prepare  the  way 
for  his  return  to  Corinth,  he  wrote  this  second  epistle. 
He  gave  it  to  Titus  to  carry,  and  entrusted  him  also 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         113 

with  the  duty  of  making  the  collection  for  the  poor  of 
Jerusalem. 

If  everything  took  place  as  above  between  the  two 
epistles,  there  must  have  been  an  interval  of  about 
a  year  between  them.  But  there  is  some  doubt  as  to 
three  things :  viz.  the  visit  of  St  Paul  to  Corinth, 
the  epistle  between  our  first  and  second  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  the  personality  of  the  man  who 
offended  the  apostle. 

1.  Did  St  Paul  visit  Corinth  between  the  two  epistles  1 
— He  says  (2.  xii.  14),  "  Behold  I  am  ready  for  the 
third  time  to  go  to  you."  Does  he  mean  that  this  is 
the  third  time  he  is  ready  to  go,  or  that  he  is  ready  to 
go  for  the  third  time  ?  In  2  xiii.  1  he  says  :  "  This  is 
the  third  time  I  come  to  you."  That  means  that 
there  has  been  a  second  visit,  but  did  it  take  place 
before  the  first  epistle  ?  For  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  7  he  says : 
"  I  will  not  see  you  now  by  the  way."  These  words 
cannot  apply  to  his  first  stay  in  Corinth  which  lasted 
eighteen  months.  Yet  the  second  visit  cannot  have 
been  before  the  first  epistle  because  (2  Cor.  ii.  1)  he 
says :  "  I  am  determined  not  to  go  to  you  a  second 
time  in  sadness."  How  can  he  have  paid  them  a 
visit  in  sadness  before  the  first  epistle  ?  It  is  true  that 
we  may  translate :  "I  am  determined  in  sadness  not 
to  go  to  you  again,"  so  that  the  sadness  refers  to  a 
projected  visit  and  not  to  one  that  is  past.  On  the 
other  hand  we  are  bound  to  hesitate  when  we  read 
(2  xiii.  2) :  "I  have  told  you  before  and  I  tell  you 
again  as  present  for  the  second  time,"  only  ought  we 
not  to  translate :  "as  when  I  was  present  for  the 
second  time "  ?  All  the  texts  can  thus  bear  two 
interpretations,  consequently  this  visit  must  remain 
problematical. 

2.  Did  he  write  another  epistle  between  the  first  and 


114  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

second? — Some  passages  in  the  second  epistle  point  to 
his  having  written  another  in  between :  "I  have 
written  this  to  you  in  order  that  when  I  come  I  may 
not  be  made  sad  by  those  who  should  give  me  joy. 
For  I  wrote  to  you  in  great  affliction  with  anguish  of 
heart  and  many  tears  "(2.  ii.  3),  and  further  on  :  "  If  I 
have  saddened  you  by  my  letter  I  am  not  sorry  .  .  . 
not  because  you  were  saddened  but  because  you  were 
saddened  unto  repentance  "  (vii.  8).  According  to 
these  passages  he  must  have  written  them  a  letter 
where  he  addressed  himself  especially  to  his  ad- 
versaries and  put  them  to  the  test  (2.  ii.  9)  to  see 
whether  they  were  in  all  things  obedient.  Perhaps  it 
was  this  letter  that  made  them  say  (2.  x.  10)  that  he 
was  bold  in  writing  and  weak  in  action.  It  must  have 
been  a  harsh  letter,  for  he  almost  regrets  having 
written  and  he  makes  excuses  (2  ii.  4  and  2  vii.  8). 

Is  the  letter  to  which  he  thus  alludes  our  first 
epistle  ?  Some  critics  think  that  it  is.  And  in  truth 
there  is  no  lack  of  severity  in  it  (i.  4,  18-21 ;  v.  1,  2 ; 
vi.  8 ;  xi.  17-22),  some  passages  might  have  seemed 
arrogant  (ii.  16 ;  iv.  1 ;  ix.  1 ;  xiv.  8  ;  xv.  8).  Yet  on 
the  whole  its  tone  is  calm.  It  would  be  astonishing 
if  he  made  excuses  for  a  former  letter  in  a  second  one 
of  much  greater  severity.  Nothing  in  the  first  epistle 
equals  in  vehemence  the  last  four  chapters  of  the 
second. 

Hence  Hausrath  and  Schmiedel  think  that  in  those 
last  four  chapters  we  have  that  letter  of  which  he  says 
(2  ii.  3)  that  he  wrote  it  with  anguish  of  heart  and 
with  tears.  There  is  a  noticeable  difference  of  tone 
between  i.-vii.  and  x.-xiii.  in  the  one  part  he  is  full  of 
gentleness  and  may  be  said  to  offer  excuses,  in  the 
other  he  is  harsh  and  even  violent ;  in  the  first  part 
the  Corinthians  are  reconciled  to  the  apostle,  in  the 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         115 

second  they  are  either  hostile  or  in  doubt ;  in  the 
beginning  of  the  epistle  the  faithful  possess  abundantly 
faith,  science  and  charity,  at  the  end  he  fears  to  find 
them  on  his  arrival  tainted  with  every  vice  ;  the  ninth 
chapter  reads  like  the  last  one  of  an  epistle,  and  the 
tenth  begins :  "  I  myself  Paul  exhort  you  "  like  the 
first  chapter  of  some  other  epistle. 

We  cannot  deny  that  at  first  sight  there  is  much 
in  this  hypothesis  that  is  attractive.  But  there  is  no 
doubt  that  tradition  is  against  it,  documentary  evi- 
dence is  altogether  in  favour  of  the  text  as  it  stands. 
And  the  contrast  between  the  two  parts  is  capable  of 
explanation.  The  first  part  is  addressed  to  the 
brethren  who  had  remained  faithful  to  him,  the  second 
part  is  meant  for  his  adversaries  ;  though  in  both  parts 
he  speaks  to  the  whole  church  and  not  to  either  party. 
Cornely  remarks  that  Demosthenes  spoke  in  this  way 
in  De  Coj^ona  :  first  he  explained  his  views  with  great 
calmness  and  moderation,  and  then  he  attacked  his 
adversary  with  the  utmost  possible  violence.  Besides 
there  are  passages  in  the  second  part  that  cannot  have 
been  written  before  the  first  part :  the  last  words  of 
the  last  chapter  can  only  be  understood  if  we  suppose 
that  Paul  after  his  vehement  apology  returns  to  the 
peaceable  tone  of  the  beginning  of  the  epistle.  We 
reject  therefore  this  hypothesis  though  it  does  not 
attack  the  pauline  origin  of  these  chapters.  And  we 
do  not  deny  that  there  may  have  been  an  epistle  in 
between  these  two,  but  if  there  was  it  is  probably  lost. 

3.  Who  was  the  personage  referred  to  in  ii.  5-11  and 
vii.  12  ? — Was  it  the  incestuous  Corinthian  ?  For- 
merly everyone  thought  so.  But  now  it  is  remarked 
that  the  words  of  St  Paul,  (ii.  5)  "  If  anyone  has  caused 
sadness,  etc.,"  might  strictly  speaking  apply  to  the 
incestuous  man,  but  that  they  seem  to  imply  some 


116  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

offence  offered  personally  to  the  apostle,  as  he  says 
farther  on  (vii.  12),  "I  have  written  to  you  not  for 
the  sake  of  the  offender,  nor  for  the  sake  of  the 
offended,  but  that  you  may  show  your  carefulness  for 
me  before  God,"  these  words  seem  to  us  to  have  no 
meaning  unless  St  Paul  was  the  one  to  whom  offence 
had  been  given ;  for  if  he  was  not  the  one  who  had 
been  badly  treated,  how  would  the  punishment  of 
the  guilty  one  prove  the  carefulness  of  the  Corinthians 
for  the  apostle  ?  And  yet  the  text  is  not  so  clear  that 
the  offender  may  not  be  the  incestuous  man  and  the 
offended  one  his  father,  in  that  case  the  Corinthians 
could  still  have  shown  their  carefulness  for  the  apostle 
by  inflicting  the  penalty  prescribed  by  him. 

Whatever  hypothesis  as  to  the  facts  be  adopted, 
the  situation  implied  by  the  facts  remains  the  same. 
The  troubles  and  divisions  of  the  Christians  in  Corinth 
are  greater  than  ever,  though  the  parties  of  Paul, 
Apollos  and  Cephas  have  disappeared,  there  remain 
only  those  who  call  themselves  Christ's  ;  these  claim 
to  be  apostles  in  the  highest  sense,  (nrepXlav  (xi.  5  and 
xii.  11)  and  also  to  be  ministers  of  justice  (xi.  15). 
They  claim  to  be  far  superior  to  Paul  because  they 
are  Hebrews,  Israelites,  of  the  race  of  Abraham,  and 
ministers  of  Christ  (xi.  22),  they  are  armed  with  letters 
of  recommendation  (iii.  1).  In  reality,  he  says,  they 
recommend  themselves  (x.  12),  they  take  praise  for 
the  work  of  others  (xi.  15),  they  enslave,  devour, 
pillage  and  outrage  the  Corinthians  (xi.  20),  they  are 
false  apostles  and  fraudulent  workers  who  disguise 
themselves  as  apostles  of  Christ  (xi.  13).  They  ac- 
cused St  Paul  of  being  changeable,  irresolute,  and 
self- contradictory  (i.  17-19).  From  afar,  they  said,  he 
threatens :  "  his  epistles  are  weighty  and  powerful, 
but  his  bodily  presence  and  his  discourse  is  contempt- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         117 

ible  "  (x.  10),  he  is  a  wicked  man  and  he  shamelessly 
falsifies  the  word  of  God  (iv.  2-3),  he  is  fraudulent  and 
pretends  to  be  disinterested  (xii.  16),  he  has  no  letters 
of  recommendation,  he  has  had  no  visions  or  revela- 
tions (xii.  1-10),  he  is  a  madman  and  has  lost  his 
reason  (xi.  1-16). 

By  means  of  accusations  such  as  these,  the  judaisers 
had  contrived  to  shake  the  confidence  of  the  faithful ; 
it  was  in  order  to  steady  them  and  to  bring  them 
back,  that  St  Paul  wrote  his  second  epistle. 


5.    ANALYSIS    OF    2    CORINTHIANS 

The  prologue  (i.  1-11)  and  the  epilogue  (xiii.  11-13) 
enclose  between  them  a  twofold  apology  for  the 
apostolate  and  life  of  St  Paul  (i.  18  to  vii.  16  and 
X.  1  to  xiii.  10),  and  the  two  apologies  are  separated 
by  directions  regarding  the  collection  for  the  poor  of 
Jerusalem  (viii.  1  to  ix.  15). 

Prologue. — Paul  and  Timothy  send  their  wishes 
of  peace  to  the  church  of  Corinth  and  to  all  the 
saints  in  Achaia.  Paul  blesses  the  God  of  all  con- 
solation. And  makes  known  to  the  Corinthians  the 
persecution  that  he  was  suffering  in  Asia.  He  trusts 
in  God  and  in  their  prayers. 

Fhst  Apology  (i.  15-vii.  16). — He  defends  himself 
against  accusations  of  inconstancy.  He  wished  to 
visit  them  on  his  way  to  Macedonia,  and  again  on  his 
way  back,  and  then  to  go  on  to  Judea,  If  he  did  not 
carry  out  this  plan,  the  reason  was  not  that  he  was 
inconstant,  but  that  he  wished  to  spare  them  and  not 
to  visit  them  in  sadness.  That  is  why  he  wrote  to 
them.  If  anyone  has  given  offence,  they  and  not  he 
are  the  ones  to  whom  offence  has  been  given.     The 


118  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

guilty  one  has  been  sufficiently  punished,  let  them 
now  forgive  him.  When  he  reached  Troas,  he  could 
find  no  rest  because  Titus  was  not  there,  therefore  he 
went  on  to  Macedonia.  He  declares  that  he  preaches 
the  word  of  God  with  sincerity,  and  proclaims  that 
he  needs  no  letters  of  recommendation  to  them  or 
from  them  because  they  are  his  epistle,  the  writing 
is  in  their  hearts  to  be  read  and  known  by  all  men. 
In  a  beautiful  passage  he  asserts  his  confidence  in 
the  success  of  his  own  ministry,  and  generally  pro- 
claims the  superiority  of  the  ministry  of  the  New 
Testament  over  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 

He  goes  on  (iv.  1)  to  assert  the  purity  of  his  work, 
he  claims  to  have  preached  not  himself  but  Jesus 
Christ,  he  never  loses  courage  in  the  midst  of  tribula- 
tions, for  he  knows  that  He  who  raised  the  Lord 
Jesus  will  raise  them  also,  he  looks  not  at  the  things 
that  are  visible  but  at  the  things  that  are  invisible 
because  the  visible  things  are  temporary  and  the 
invisible  things  are  eternal.  Let  thein  not  receive 
the  grace  of  God  in  vain.  Let  them  serve  God  in 
patience,  in  tribulation,  in  necessities,  etc.  Let  them 
not  contract  marriage  with  infidels. 

He  ends  this  apology  by  again  asserting  (vii.  2) 
that  he  has  injured  no  one,  and  he  says  this  not  by 
way  of  accusing  them,  because  they  are  in  his  heart 
to  live  and  to  die.  In  Macedonia  he  found  no  rest 
until  Titus  came  and  consoled  him  by  an  account  of 
their  good  dispositions. 

The  Collection  (eighth  and  ninth  chapters). — St  Paul 
quotes  the  example  of  the  Macedonian  churches  who 
out  of  their  poverty  have  contributed  abundantly. 
They  gave  thus  abundantly  because  he  had  so  highly 
praised  the  generosity  of  the  Corinthians.  Now  he 
is  sending  the  brethren  in  order  that  when  the  Mace- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         119 

donians  reach  Corinth  they  may  not  find  that  the 
praise  was  unmerited  and  that  the  collection  is  not 
ready.  He  is  sending  Titus — who  is  desirous  of 
going  to  them — and  two  others,  his  object  being  to 
avoid  being  blamed  as  to  the  disposal  of  this  money. 

Second  Apology  (tenth  to  the  end). — He  beseeches 
them  by  the  meekness  and  the  modesty  of  Christ  not 
to  oblige  him  to  make  use  of  the  spiritual  weapons 
that  are  mighty  to  pull  down  fortifications  and  de- 
stroy counsels.  He  begs  them  to  bear  with  him,  he 
is  jealous  of  them  with  a  holy  jealousy  ;  he  compares 
himself  with  his  adversaries  and  claims  superiority 
over  them  in  every  way :  in  origin,  in  zeal,  in  suffer- 
ings, in  revelations,  in  successful  evangelising.  He 
knows  that  boasting  is  foolish,  but  they  have  com- 
pelled him.  He  threatens  that  he  will  not  spare  the 
guilty  when  he  comes.  He  writes  this  being  absent 
in  order  that  when  he  is  present  he  may  not  have  to 
use  with  severity  the  power  that  Christ  has  given 
him  for  edification  and  not  for  destruction. 

Epilogue  (xiii.  11-13). — He  wishes  them  peace  and 
joy.  Let  them  salute  each  other  with  the  kiss  of 
peace.     The  saints  salute  them. 


6.    TIME    AND    PLACE    OF    WRITING 

The  first  epistle  was  written  at  Ephesus  in  the 
spring  55-58.  After  Pentecost  St  Paul  went  to 
Troas  hoping  to  find  Titus  there,  but  not  finding  him 
went  on  to  Macedonia  where  Titus  joined  him  (2  Cor. 
ii.  12  and  vii.  5).  Learning  the  state  of  things  at 
Corinth,  he  wrote  the  second  epistle  about  the  month 
of  September  55-58,  for  these  events  would  not  need 
a   longer  period  than  six  months.     If  however  we 


120  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

admit  that  in  between  the  first  and  second  epistles  he 
visited  Corinth  and  wrote  an  epistle,  then  the  space 
of  time  between  our  two  would  have  to  be  eight  or 
ten  months.  Perhaps  it  was  at  Philippi  that  he 
wrote.  This  is  the  testimony  of  the  Vatican  and 
Peshitto  MSS.  Probably  Titus  and  the  two  brethren 
who  accompanied  him  were  the  bearers.  We  cannot 
tell  who  the  brother  was  whose  praise  was  in  all  the 
churches,  it  may  be  Barnabas,  Silas,  Luke  or  Mark. 
Nor  can  we  tell  who  the  third  one  was,  it  may  be 
Luke,  Sosthenes,  or  Timothy.  Or  they  may  be  men 
whose  names  are  entirely  unknown  to  us. 


7.    AUTHENTICITY    OF    THE    TWO    EPISTLES    TO    THE 
CORINTHIANS 

In  ancient  times  these  epistles  were  attributed  to 
St  Paul,  and  it  is  only  in  recent  times  that  certain 
hypercritical  writers  have  questioned  their  authenticity 
in  part  or  in  entirety.  Nor  has  the  modern  view 
gained  many  adherents. 

First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. — Tradition  is  so 
explicit  that  there  cannot  be  the  least  doubt  of  the 
authenticity  of  this  epistle.  At  the  end  of  the  first 
century,  in  95,  Clement  of  Rome  writing  to  the 
Corinthians  (47,  1-3)  refers  to  this  letter  and  calls 
it  inspired :  "  Remember  the  epistle  of  Blessed  Paul 
the  Apostle.  What  did  he  write  to  you  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Gospel  ?  In  very  truth  divinely  in- 
spired TTvev/jLariKco?  he  wrote  to  you  of  himself,  of 
Cephas,  and  of  Apollos,  because  you  already  had 
preferences."  His  praises  of  charity  (47)  recall  St 
Paul's  words  (xiii.  1-13).  St  Polycarp's  testimony  is 
quite  as  clear :  "  Do  we  not  know,  he  writes  to  the 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         121 

Philippians  (xi.  2)  that  the  saints  will  judge  the 
world  as  Paul  teaches  ? "  [cf.  1  Cor.  vi.  3).  He 
enumerates  some  vices  of  which  St  Paul  speaks  (1  vi. 
9-10),  and  asserts  with  him  that  they  shall  not  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God  (v.  3),  Other  quotations  more 
or  less  textual  or  analogous  passages  may  be  seen  in 
Didache  ix.  =  1  Cor.  x.  10  and  xi.  29  ;  Did.  x.  =  1  xvi. 
28  ;  Did.  xvi.  =  1  xv.  52  ;  St  Ignatius  M.  Eph.  viii.  = 

1  i.  18,  23,  24 ;  Rom.  v.  1  =  1  iv.  4 ;  Ep.  to  Diog.  ix. 

2  =  1  iii.  21-26. 

St  Justin  in  his  first  Apology  (19)  speaks  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  in  much  the  same  words  as 
1  Cor.  XV.  Athenagoras  quotes  from  1  Cor.  xv.  54 
as  from  the  Apostle.  St  Ireneus  quotes  from  this 
epistle  more  than  sixty  times  mentioning  St  Paul 
often  and  the  Corinthians  sometimes  (adv.  Her. 
III.  ii.  9  =  1  Cor.  xi.  4-5;  ib.  4  xxvii.  3  =  1  x.  2-12; 
ih.  3  xxiii.  8  =  1  xv.  22).  Clement  of  Alexandria 
quotes  it  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  times,  and 
mentions  it  in  these  words :  "  In  the  first  letter  to 
the  Corinthians "  (Paed.  i.  6).  Tertullian  quotes 
from  it  four  or  five  hundred  times  and  sometimes 
in  these  words :  "  Paul  in  the  first  letter  to  the 
Corinthians  "  (De  Resurr.  18). 

Heretical  writers  of  the  second  century  knew  the 
first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  Marcion  admitted 
it  into  his  Apostolicon.  The  Ophites  and  the 
Perates  held  it  for  canonical  according  to  Hippolytus 
Philosoph  (5,  8).  The  same  is  true  of  Heracleon 
(Orig.  Com.  in  Jo.  xiii.  59)  and  of  Ptolemy  (Iren. 
adv.  Her.  1,  3,  5).  The  Peshitto  contains  this  epistle, 
and  so  do  the  old  Latin  and  Syriac  versions.  It  is 
also  in  the  canon  of  Muratori,  which  proves  at  the 
very  least  that  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century 
it  was  held  by  the  Roman  Church  to  be  inspired. 


122  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

An  examination  of  this  epistle  from  the  point  of 
view  of  grammar,  literature,  history  or  dogma  con- 
firms the  testimony  of  tradition. 

In  language,  style,  and  in  dialectical  processes  it 
is  similar  to  the  epistles  which  are  acknowledged  to 
be  authentic.  It  stands  by  itself  among  the  epistles 
of  the  Apostle  on  account  of  the  nobility  and  dis- 
tinction of  its  language,  its  lofty  eloquence,  the  beauty 
and  variety  of  its  figures — chapter  thirteen  contains 
one  of  St  Paul's  noblest  pages — nevertheless  it  is 
marked  by  all  the  characteristics  of  his  style  and 
language.  We  must  admit  that  there  is  something 
peculiar  in  it :  St  Paul  wished  to  show  to  these 
Greeks  so  fond  of  fine  words  that  he  knew  how  to 
write  in  chastened  language.  None  of  his  epistles 
are  in  so  clear  a  style,  or  have  phrases  so  neatly 
turned,  or  are  so  closely  reasoned.  The  method  of 
the  arguments  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  rules 
of  Aristotelian  logic  than  in  certain  other  epistles, 
e.g.  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  where  several 
examples  of  rabbinical  dialectics  are  to  be  found. 
In  this  epistle  St  Paul  states  a  general  principle,  dis- 
cusses the  various  aspects  of  the  question,  proceeding 
from  the  general  to  the  particular,  then  answers  the 
objections. 

In  spite  of  this  peculiarity,  and  in  spite  of  the  110 
hapaxlegomena  that  we  find  in  this  epistle,  we  find 
in    it    also    the    characteristic   words    of    St   Paul's 

language  :     aia-^po<i,    aveyKXriroq,    aTrei/txi,    direKSey^ojULai,    etC. 

and  some  of  the  words  that  he  was  the  first  to  make 

use    of    as   well  :    aTrpoa-KOTrog,    apa-evoKOiTf]'?,    eiSuyXoXarpia, 
6(pei\r],    (TvvKoiiniovo<i,  (pavepwcri?,  ■^(apiaixa,  etc.   which    OCCUr 

also  in  his  other  epistles. 

The  style  is  full  here  as  elsewhere  of  his  special 
figures :  anacoluthon  iv.  2,  6,  7,  8,  xii.  28 ;  antithesis 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         123 

1  xviii.  21,  iii.  2,  iv.  10,  18,  viii.  1  ;  asyndetis  iii. 
15,  16,  17,  18,  xiii.  4-8;  euphemism  v.  i.  2,  vii.  3; 
irony  iv.  8,  viii.  1  ;  litotes  xi.  17,  22 ;  parallelism 
vii.  16,  X.  23,  xi.  4-5 ;  paronomasis  ii.  13,  iii.  17, 
vii.  31,  etc.  And  peculiarities  of  syntax  may  be 
found  here  similar  to  those  that  are  to  be  found  in 
his  other  epistles. 

Beside  the  dogmas  that  are  more  especially  taught 
in  this  epistle,  viz.  the  Holy  Eucharist  with  its  insti- 
tution and  celebration  (xi.  23-24),  public  worship  (xiv.), 
spiritual  gifts  (xiv.  24-33),  baptism  (i.  13-17),  the 
importance  of  Charity  (xiii.),  the  resurrection,  its 
method,  and  the  future  life  (xv.  35-58),  we  have  here 
also  the  specially  pauline  dogmas — viz.  justification  by 
faith,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  the  pattern  of  our 
resurrection,  and  the  unity  of  the  Church,  Christ 
being  the  Head  and  we  the  members. 

Finally  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  tell  us  most  of 
the  facts  to  which  St  Paul  alludes  in  this  epistle  :  his 
stay  with  the  Corinthians  and  his  being  the  father  of 
their  faith  (ii.  1  ;  iv.  15  =  Acts  xviii.),  his  project  of 
returning  to  Corinth  (iv.  17,  19  =  Acts  xix.  2),  the 
preaching  of  Apollos  (iii.  6  =  Acts  xviii.  27,  28),  St 
Paul's  working  with  his  hands  (iv.  11, 12  =  Acts  xviii. 
3;  XX.  34),  his  having  baptised  Crispus  (i.  14  =  Acts 
xviii.  8),  his  being  a  Jew  with  the  Jews  (ix.  20  =  Acts 
xvi.  3 ;  xxi.  23-26),  his  intention  of  going  through 
Macedonia  to  Corinth  (xvi.  5  =  Acts  xiv.  21).  We 
may  therefore  conclude  with  Christian  Baur  that  this 
epistle  carries  in  itself  the  stamps  of  its  own  authen- 
ticity, for  it  takes  us  back  better  than  any  other  part 
of  the  New  Testament  into  a  living  church  in  process 
of  being  formed,  and  gives  us  a  sight  of  the  circum- 
stances through  which  the  development  of  the  newly 
engendered  life  of  Christianity  had  of  necessity  to  pass. 


124  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

We  will  not  stop  to  discuss  the  interpolations  or 
rearrangements  that  Volter  and  Hagge  have  discovered 
in  this  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  We  consider  that 
they  are  not  worth  discussing. 

Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. — The  testimony 
of  tradition  as  to  this  second  epistle  is  not  very  clear 
before  the  middle  of  the  second  century ;  there  are 
however  some  things  that  remind  us  of  it  in  the  jfirst 
epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome,  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Philadelphians  of  St  Ignatius,  in  St  Polycarp's,  and 
in  the  epistle  to  Diognetus ;  the  most  striking  re- 
miniscence is  in  St  Polycarp's  epistle  to  the  Philippians 
(iv.  1  =  1  Cor.  vi.  7) ;  cf.  also  ii.  2  and  2  Cor.  iv.  14. 
The  beautiful  passage  in  the  epistle  to  Diognetus  (v. 
8-16)  appears  to  be  inspired  by  2  Cor.  x.  3  and  vi,  8-10 
by  2  Cor.  xi.  24  {cf.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  ad  autol. 
i.  2  =  2  Cor.  vii.  1,  and  i.  7  =  2  Cor.  v.  4,  and  iii.  4  =  2 
Cor.  xi.  13).  St  Ireneus  quotes  this  epistle  several 
times,  twice  by  name  {adv.  Her.  iv.  28,  3  =  2  Cor.  ii. 
15,  and  29  1  =  2  Cor.  iv.  4).  Athenagoras  {de  resur. 
xviii.  1  quotes  2  Cor.  v.  10).  Clement  of  Alexandria 
quotes  from  it  more  than  forty  times  (Strom,  iv.  16  = 
2  Cor.  ii.  14).  Tertullian  also  quotes  it  often.  Basil- 
ides  knew  it,  and  Marcion  put  it  in  his  Apostolicon. 
These  testimonies  of  ancient  writers,  and  the  fact  that 
it  stands  in  the  old  Latin  versions,  in  the  Peshitto, 
and  in  the  canon  of  Muratori,  prove  that  as  early  as 
the  second  century  it  was  considered  to  be  canonical. 

If  we  study  the  epistle  itself,  we  find  in  it  all  that 
characterises  the  personality  of  St  Paul.  He  may  be 
said  to  come  to  life  in  it  again  to  show  us  his  absolute 
devotion  to  Christ,  and  his  tender  love  for  the  children 
whom  he  has  begotten  in  the  faith  ;  but  he  allows  us 
at  the  same  time  to  see  his  ardent  and  passionate 
nature  and  his  bitter  irony.     His  well-known  method 


OF   TH'E   new    testament         125 

of  teaching  may  be  seen  here  as  well :  personal  details 
are  constantly  mixed  up  with  general  ideas,  from  a 
discussion  of  facts  he  rises  to.  principles  and  teaches 
the  loftiest  doctrines.  While  defending  his  own 
ministry,  he  proves  the  superiority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment over  the  Old  Testament  (iii.)^  from  his  personal 
experiences  he  draws  conclusions  as  to  the  future  life 
(iv.)  and  as  to  the  resurrection  (v.),  on  the  occasion  of 
the  collection  he  teaches  the  Incarnation  of  Christ 
and  the  goodness  of  God  (ix.  8-12). 

Moreover  this  second  epistle  is  a  natural  conse- 
quence and  corollary  of  the  first  one.  The  germs  of 
dissension  are  developed  here  that  made  their  appear- 
ance there,  the  state  of  things  is  much  the  same,  but 
it  is  more  defined.  Events  have  taken  a  course  that 
one  might  have  foretold,  and  the  facts  are  such  that 
with  the  help  of  the  first  epistle  one  might  compose 
the  second,  or  from  the  second  reconstruct  the  first. 
Thus  (1  Cor.  xvi.  5)  St  Paul  says  that  he  will  pass 
through  Macedonia,  and  (2  Cor.  ii.  3)  he  leaves  Troas 
for  Macedonia  and  in  ix.  2  he  actually  is  there.     In 

1  V.  1-6  he  excommunicates  an  incestuous  man,  and 

2  ii.  6-8  pardons  him.  In  1  xvi.  1  he  ordains  how  the 
collection  is  to  be  made,  and  2  viii.  shows  that  it  has 
actually  been  inade. 

The  agreement  with  the  Acts  is  quite  as  clear :  cf. 
2  Cor.  xi.  32  -  Acts  ix.  23  ;  2  Cor.  i.  3-10  -  Acts  xix. ; 
2  Cor.  i.  19  =  Acts  xviii.  1-5. 

Though  there  are  in  this  epistle  ninety-two  hayax- 
legomena,     among     others :      aypv-rrvla     €v)(api(TTei(Tdai, 

KaTO7rTpi(^€<T0ai,  eKOtjiueiv,  evotjiuetv,  /uoXvarfJio?,  aapyai'tj,  cr/coXo'v|/-, 

and  some  remarkable  new  expressions :  "  the  God  of 
this  world"  (iv.  4),  "our  outward  man"  (iv.  16),  oltto 
Trepva-i,  (viii.  10)  "angel  of  light"  (xi.  14),  "third 
heaven"  (xii.  2),  we  find  here  also  St  Paul's  ordinary 


126  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

vocabulary  and  especially  words  that  he  was  the  first 

to  make  use  of:  oivaKaiv6(ji},a.vTiiut.i(T9ia,§vvaTe(io,7rpoe'7rayy€Ww, 
VTrepTrepia-crevoo,  ■)^api(rim.a,  \p^€v§a§€\(po?,  which  are  also  found 

in  other  epistles.  Let  us  also  notice  his  usual  figures 
of  language  and  style :  the  anacoluthon  i.  7,  vii.  5, 
ix.  10-13  ;  the  asyndetis  viii.  23,  x.  16,  xi.  20 ;  the 
pregnant  construction  x.  5,  xi.  3 ;  the  euphemism 
vii.  11;  irony  xi.  16,  xii.  13;  the  oxymoron  (con- 
junction of  contradictory  words)  vi.  9-10-14,  viii.  2, 
xii.  5-9-10  ;  parallels  vii.  4-5,  xiii.  4  ;  paronomasis  iii.  2, 
iv.  8,  V.  4,  vii.  22. 

The  lofty  eloquence  of  this  epistle,  and  especially 
the  remarkable  character  of  its  final  chapters,  have 
been  noticed  in  all  ages  by  Christian  writers  (St  Aug. 
de  doctr.  christ.  4,  12).  Erasmus  brings  this  out  well : 
the  figures  of  the  words  such  as  :  opposition  of  terms, 
disposition  of  periods,  symmetry  of  members  of 
sentences,  similarity  of  endings,  repetition  of  words, 
and  other  similar  effects  give  to  the  style  so  much 
variety,  life,  and  movement  that  nothing  can  surpass 
it.  He  admires  also  the  logical  method :  the  wisest 
critics  strive  and  labour  to  explain  the  thoughts  of 
poets  and  orators,  but  with  this  orator  unheard-of 
efforts  are  necessary  to  seize  his  intention,  object,  or 
purpose ;  he  twists  and  turns  in  so  many  directions, 
and — be  it  said  without  irreverence — he  shows  so  much 
cunning,  that  one  can  hardly  believe  that  it  is  always 
the  same  man  that  is  speaking.  At  one  moment  he 
is  like  a  limpid  source,  then  little  by  little  he  becomes 
impetuous,  next  like  a  torrent  he  carries  everything 
before  him,  again  his  flow  becomes  smooth,  the  waters 
spread  out  like  a  vast  lake,  then  again  they  contract 
into  a  narrow  space  and  almost  disappear  to  reappear 
again  where  one  least  expects  them  (Paraph.  Dedic). 
This  judgment   of  Erasmus  may   be   corrected   by 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         127 

Plummer's  (Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  pp.  656):  "The 
style  of  this  epistle  has  not  been  so  universally  ad- 
mired as  that  of  the  first  one.  The  Greek  is  un- 
polished. The  narrative  is  often  broken  and  confused, 
there  is  a  want  of  ease  and  grace  everywhere.  The 
thoughts,  as  beautiful  as  those  of  the  first  epistle,  are 
less  well  expressed  ;  no  passage  comes  up  in  eloquence 
to  the  first  letter.  Yet  in  spite  of  the  feebleness  of 
the  language,  there  is  powerful  eloquence  in  this 
second  epistle.  The  intensity  of  the  contradictory 
sentiments  under  the  influence  of  which  it  was 
written,  has  broken  the  rhythm  and  the  arrangement 
of  the  sentences,  but  they  leave  an  impression  of  life 
and  of  power  that  a  more  chastened  diction  would 
have  weakened.  You  feel  in  every  phrase  that  the 
writer  speaks  from  the  depth  of  his  heart — a  heart  on 
which  Corinth  was  written." 

This  second  epistle  is  homogeneous  throughout, 
except  perhaps  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  chapter.  In 
verse  11  he  tells  the  Corinthians  that  his  heart  is 
enlarged  to  them,  and  he  begs  them  to  be  towards 
him  as  he  is  towards  them  ;  then  from  the  fourteenth 
verse  he  goes  on  for  five  verses  to  exhort  them  not  to 
hold  communication  with  infidels  ;  and  returns  again 
to  his  request  for  their  hearts.  We  must  admit  that 
these  five  verses  appear  to  interrupt  the  course  of 
thought,  but  it  is  not  unusual  for  the  apostle  to  allow 
himself  to  be  drawn  aside  by  an  allied  idea,  and  then 
to  go  back  to  where  he  broke  off.  We  must  say  also 
that  this  passage  is  found  in  the  most  ancient  MSS. 
and  has  never  been  under  suspicion.  Besides  both 
the  ideas  in  it  and  the  expressions  are  quite  pauline, 
and  it  is  not  impossible  to  attach  them  to  the  context. 
There  is  no  reason  then  to  see  in  it  a  passage  from 
the  letter  alluded  to  1  Cor.  v.  9  (Hilgenfeld,  Clemen), 


128      BOOKS    OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT 

or  to  think  that  it  is  not  in  its  right  place,  or  finally 
to  reject  it  altogether  (Holsten,  Baljou). 

It  has  been  remarked  that  after  having  in  the 
eighth  chapter  settled  everything  concerning  the 
collection  for  the  poor  of  Jerusalem,  St  Paul  says  in 
the  ninth  chapter  that  it  is  superfluous  to  write  to 
the  Corinthians  on  this  subject,  yet  goes  on  to  give 
them  reasons  for  contributing  generously.  Hence  it 
has  been  thought  that  this  chapter  was  not  in  its 
right  place,  or  was  a  note  written  by  the  Apostle 
under  other  circumstances.  This  hypothesis  is  quite 
useless,  for  it  is  more  simple  to  say  that  St  Paul  after 
settling  what  we  may  call  the  material  details  of  the 
collection,  rises  according  to  his  wont  to  more  general 
considerations. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  quite  possible  that  this 
epistle  was  written  with  intervals,  this  would  explain 
the  want  of  connection  between  its  parts  and  the  pro- 
found difference  of  tone  between  the  first  part  and 
the  third.  This  is  however  only  a  supposition,  of 
which  there  is  no  positive  proof. 

The  effect  produced  by  the  epistle  is  not  known 
to  us.  We  gather  that  it  was  good,  and  that  the 
Corinthians  satisfied  the  Apostle  in  every  way,  be- 
cause the  visit  of  which  he  speaks  to  them  was 
actually  made  (Acts  xx.  2),  and  also  because  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans  which  was  written  at  Corinth 
he  writes  with  serenity  and  makes  no  allusion  to  his 
being  in  any  difficult  situation.  Nevertheless  some 
germs  of  dissension  must  have  remained  in  the  church 
of  Corinth,  for  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century 
Clement  of  Rome  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  in  the 
name  of  the  Roman  Church  to  exhort  them  to  peace 
and  to  reverence  for  their  chiefs. 


CHAPTER   IV 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS 

This  is  one  of  the  most  important  epistles  of  St  Paul 
both  as  regards  history  and  as  regards  dogma.  For 
it  is  full  of  detailed  and  exact  information  as  to  his 
vocation,  and  as  to  his  relations  with  the  first  apostles 
and  with  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem ;  and  this  is 
information  that  cannot  so  well  be  found  anywhere 
else.  His  teaching  is  outlined  here,  and  the  outline 
is  filled  in  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  This  is  also 
the  most  difficult  epistle  to  understand,  first  because 
we  do  not  know  the  circumstance  that  formed  the 
occasion  for  it,  and  secondly  because  the  apostle 
writing  to  Christians  with  whom  he  had  had  frequent 
relations,  to  whom  he  had  long  given  catechetical 
instruction,  often  speaks  by  way  of  allusion,  and  gives 
only  the  main  lines  of  his  doctrine  on  justification 
and  on  the  dying  out  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  knowing 
of  course  that  those  to  whom  he  writes  were  familiar 
with  his  ideas.  We  are  not  able  to  say  for  certain 
either  at  what  date  this  epistle  was  written  as  compared 
with  the  dates  of  other  epistles.  We  place  it  after 
those  to  the  Corinthians,  not  because  we  believe  it  to 
have  been  written  after  them  as  we  shall  explain  farther 
on,  but  because  we  wish  to  bring  it  near  to  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans  to  which  it  is  undoubtedly  closely  allied. 

1.    TO    WHOM   WAS    IT   ADDRESSED  ? 

The  heading  contains  the  words  :  "to  the  churches 
I  129 


130  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

of  Galatia,"  and  the  Apostle  calls  his  readers  :  "  sense- 
less Galatians"  (iii.  1).  Now  in  St  Paul's  time,  that 
word  Galatia  meant  a  Roman  province  of  that  name 
which  contained  men  belonging  to  very  various  races  : 
Galatians,  Phrygians,  Pisidians  and  Lycaonians.  To 
whom  of  all  these  was  it  addressed  ?  Before  we  give 
any  answer  to  that  question,  let  us  state  in  what  way 
that  province  of  Galatia  came  to  be  formed. 

About  the  year  278-277  the  Gauls  invaded  Asia 
Minor,  overran  the  country  spreading  devastation 
everywhere,  and  at  last  about  232  settled  down  in 
a  region  which  before  that  time  belonged  partly  to 
Phrygia  and  partly  to  Cappadocia  and  Paphlagonia. 
From  the  invaders  it  received  the  name  of  Galatia. 
About  twenty  thousand  Gauls  entered  Asia.  Others 
joined  them  later  on.  But  they  must  have  formed 
only  a  minority  in  a  country  of  8000  kilometres. 
They  became  the  aristocracy  and  settled  not  in  the 
towns  but  in  the  country,  and  made  the  native  popu- 
lation work  for  them,  allowing  the  natives  to  keep 
two-thirds  of  what  the  land  produced.  They  soon 
became  fused  with  their  subjects,  for  about  189  before 
Christ  the  consul  Manlius  Vulso  says  that  they  were 
miocti  et  Gallogrceci.  Galatia  therefore  contained 
Gauls,  Phrygians,  Greeks,  and  also  in  St  Paul's  time 
Romans.  There  were  also  some  Jews,  emigrants  from 
the  Jewish  colonies  established  in  Phrygia  by  the 
Seleucidee.  The  Gauls  led  a  pastoral  life,  whereas  the 
Greeks,  Romans  and  Jews  dwelt  principally  in  the 
towns.  The  principal  towns  were  Ancyra,  Pessinonte 
and  Tavium.  We  do  not  know  to  what  extent  the 
Gauls  adopted  the  religion  or  the  customs  of  the 
country.  Sacerdotal  functions  in  the  Phrygian 
temples  were  performed  by  Gauls,  these  were  probably 
noblemen  who   took   possession  of  the  immense  in- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         131 

fluence  attached  to  the  rank  of  king-priests  in  the 
national  temples.  But  the  bulk  of  the  invaders  re- 
mained faithful  to  its  gods,  and  even  to  its  language, 
since  St  Jerome  tells  us  that  in  the  fourth  century  the 
inhabitants  spoke  a  language  similar  to  that  of  Treves. 

In  the  year  25  a.c,  after  occurrences  of  which  we 
need  not  give  any  account  here,  on  the  death  of 
Amyntas  the  last  king  of  the  Galatians,  the  Roman 
province  of  Galatia  was  formed.  In  St  Paul's  time 
it  comprised  besides  Galatia  proper,  Paphlagonia, 
Pisidia,  parts  of  Pontus,  of  Phrygia,  of  Lycaonia  and 
of  Isauria.  This  province  belonged  to  the  Emperor, 
and  was  governed  by  a  legate  propraetor  of  pretorian 
rank,  and  his  residence  was  at  Ancyra  the  capital  of 
Galatia. 

We  must  now  say  something  of  the  southern  part 
of  Roman  Galatia :  Pisidia,  Lycaonia,  and  Isauria, 
which  St  Paul  evangelised  during  his  first  missionary 
journey.  We  wish  we  could  tell  how  the  population 
of  these  parts  was  composed,  but  our  information  on 
that  point  is  very  vague  and  indefinite. 

From  Perge  in  Pamphylia,  St  Paul  crossed  the 
lower  spurs  of  Mount  Taurus,  and  reached  Antioch  of 
Pisidia  which  as  well  as  Iconium  is  situated  in 
Phrygian  territory,  but  the  former  is  near  Pisidia,  and 
the  latter  is  near  Lycaonia.  Antioch,  being  a 
Roman  colony,  was  a  place  of  considerable  importance 
at  that  time ;  strangers,  Romans,  Greeks  and  Jews 
were  there  in  great  numbers.  A  lunar  divinity 
named  Asksenos  was  the  object  of  worship,  and  all 
the  Phrygian  superstitions  were  still  believed  in  by 
many.     Women  enjoyed  great  power  and  influence. 

Iconium  was  also  a  Roman  colony,  and  numbers  of 
Romans,  Greeks  and  Jews  dwelt  there.  Lycaonia, 
where  St  Paul  evangelised  the  important  cities  of 


132  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Lystra  and  Derbe,  both  of  them  Roman  colonies,  was 
a  land  of  elevated  plateaux,  where  the  population  was 
poor  and  simple  and  pastoral.  Jews  were  not 
numerous.  And  the  old  Greek  legends  were  still 
held  in  reverence. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  Roman  province  of 
Galatia  in  the  time  of  St  Paul.  Now  let  us  consider 
his  various  journeys  in  that  country.  During  his 
first  missionary  journey  he  and  Barnabas  evangelised 
the  island  of  Cyprus,  crossed  over  to  Asia  Minor  and 
preached  Christ  at  the  risk  of  their  lives  at  Antioch 
of  Pisidia,  Iconium  in  Phrygia,  at  Derbe  and  Lystra 
in  Lycaonia,  and  then  went  back  by  Lystra,  Iconium 
and  Antioch.  Acts  xiii.  and  xiv.  give  a  full  and 
detailed  account  of  the  evangelisation  of  all  these 
places  with  all  the  episodes  that  occurred  in  the  course 
of  it.  In  his  second  missionary  journey  St  Paul 
alone  visited  the  churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia,  went 
to  Derbe  and  Lystra,  then  being  prevented  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  from  preaching  in  the  province  of  Asia 
(Acts  xvi.  6),  he  went  through  Phrygia  and  the  Galatic 
region  yaXariKij  x'^P^^  ^^^  went  on  to  Mysia.  In  his 
third  missionary  journey  (Acts  xviii.  23)  he  started 
from  Antioch,  went  through  the  Galatic  region  and 
Phrygia,  and  then  went  on  to  Ephesus. 

Our  first  difficulty  is  to  understand  what  is  meant 
by  Galatic  region.  Is  it  Galatia  properly  so  called,  or 
is  it  the  phrygio-galatic  region,  that  is  the  southern 
part  of  the  province  of  Galatia  ?  Ramsay  adopts  the 
latter  interpretation,  and  if  he  is  correct,  St  Paul 
never  evangelised  Galatia  proper,  and  consequently 
this  epistle  must  have  been  addressed  to  the  churches 
of  southern  Galatia. 

The  texts  are  not  plain  enough  to  settle  this 
question  definitely.     They  are  capable  of  more  than 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         133 

one  interpretation.  Acts  xv.  41-xvi.  7  tell  us  that 
St  Paul  and  his  companions  went  through  Syria  and 
Cilicia,  went  to  Derbe  and  I^ystra,  were  prevented  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  from  preaching  in  Asia,  went  through 
Phrygia  and  the  Galatic  region  (phrygio-galatic). 
When  they  were  near  Mysia,  they  wished  to  go  into 
Bithynia,  but  the  spirit  of  Jesus  would  not  permit 
them.  Again,  in  chapter  xviii.  23  St  Paul  leaves 
Antioch  and  goes  through  first  the  Galatic  region 
and  then  through  Phrygia. 

Galatia  proper  can  hardly  be  what  St  Luke  intended 
to  speak  of,  otherwise  he  would  not  have  employed 
the  unusual  expression  :  Galatic  region.  Besides  in 
the  missionary  journey  in  xvi.  6  the  country  through 
which  they  went  is  called  phrygio-galatic  SieXOovrei  8e 

rrjv   (ppvylav  Koi   yaXariKtjv  -^wpav,  the  WOrds   (ppvyiau  and 

yaXariK^jv  are  adjectives,  because  there  is  no  article 
before  yaXariKrjv.  However  some  interpreters  take 
cjypvyiap  for  a  noun  and  translate  "  Paul  traversed 
Phrygia  and  the  Galatic  region.  "  Neither  grammar 
nor  custom  can  settle  the  question,  for  examples  may 
be  found  in  St  Luke  in  favour  of  either  way  of  trans- 
lating. The  opposite  order  is  found  in  xviii.  23  in 
another  missionary  journey,  the  Galatic  region  comes 
first,  and  Phrygia  comes  next.  If  we  admit  that  in 
both  places  St  Luke  speaks  of  the  southern  part  of 
the  Roman  province  of  Galatia,  both  expressions  can 
be  seen  to  fit  in  with  the  geography  of  the  country. 

After  visiting  Derbe  and  Lystra,  St  Paul  went 
through  the  phrygio-galatic  region,  viz.  that  part  of 
Phrygia  which  belonged  to  the  province  of  Galatia, 
and  probably  reached  Antioch  of  Pisidia.  Then  he 
went  through  the  province  of  Asia,  for  he  was  not 
forbidden  to  pass  through  it  though  he  was  prevented 
from  preaching  in  it.     When  he  was  near  Mysia,  he 


134  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

wished  to  enter  Bithynia,  but  was  again  prevented. 
In  his  second  journey  (xviii.  23)  he  was  going  from 
Antioch  to  Ephesus,  the  most  direct  route  was 
through  the  Galatic  region  {the  south  of  Galatia) 
and  Phrygia.  If  in  both  journeys  it  be  insisted 
upon  that  Galatia  proper  is  intended  by  the  Acts, 
St  Paul's  itinerary  becomes  incomprehensible.  If 
he  left  Galatia  intending  to  go  to  Bithynia,  there 
was  no  reason  why  he  should  go  as  far  as  Mysia, 
because  all  the  way  from  Galatia  to  Mysia  he  was 
walking  along  the  borders  of  Bithynia. 

We  must  admit  that  though  our  interpretation 
of  this  passage  is  geographically  true,  it  presents 
grammatical  difficulties.  The  most  serious  of  these 
is  the  construction  of  the  phrase  (Acts  xvi.  6)  where 
KwXuOevreg  being  prevented  is  an  aorist  participle.  This 
usually  implies  an  action  anterior  to  the  preceding 
verb.  It  would  seem  therefore  that  they  passed 
through  the  phrygio-galatic  region  after  they  had 
been  prevented  from  preaching.  And  this  would 
destroy  our  interpretation.  But  Burton  quotes 
several  passages  where  an  aorist  participle  stands 
for  an  action  performed  after  that  of  the  principal 
verbs  (Acts  xvi.  23  and  xxii.  24  and  xxiii.  35  and 
XXV.  13).  Let  us  acknowledge  also  that  in  spite  of 
the  arguments  stated  above,  we  cannot  positively 
assert  that  the  Acts  leave  no  room  for  a  journey  of 
St  Paul  into  Galatia  proper ;  it  remains  possible  that 
he  visited  and  evangelised  twice  (Acts  xvi.  6  and 
xviii.  23).  Does  it  follow  that  this  epistle  to  the 
Galatians  was  addressed  to  the  inhabitants  of  Galatia 
proper?  That  is  the  question  that  we  must  now 
attempt  to  solve.  We  will  give  an  impartial  resume 
of  the  arguments  put  forward  by  both  sides.  And 
first  those  that  are  in  favour  of  Southern  Galatia. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         135 

We  know  in  the  fullest  detail  all  about  the 
evangelisation  of  Southern  Galatia  (Acts  xiii.  and 
14),  these  churches  are  further  mentioned  in  Acts 
xvi.  and  xviii. ;  whereas  of  the  churches  in  Galatia 
proper,  admitting  that  Galatical  jxgion  means  Galatia 
proper,  the  Acts  say  nothing  whatever — not  even 
that  St  Paul  founded  them.  It  would  be  astonishing 
if  St  Luke,  whose  purpose  was  to  show  forth  the 
development  of  the  Christian  Church,  spoke  of  St 
Paul's  passing  through  that  country,  without  mention- 
ing that  he  founded  churches  in  it ;  especially  as  they 
must  have  been  important  churches  for  the  Apostle 
to  write  to  them  one  of  his  most  important  epistles. 
Nothing  is  known  to  us  concerning  these  churches, 
and  Ramsay  maintains  that  there  is  no  mention  of 
bishops  in  that  country  until  the  fourth  century. 
And  on  the  other  hand,  if  this  epistle  was  addressed 
to  the  Northern  Galatians,  then  no  mention  is  ever 
made  in  the  epistles  of  St  Paul  of  these  Southern 
churches  of  which  we  know  so  fully  how  he  laboured 
to  found  them,  and  how  he  thought  them  of  sufficient 
importance  to  visit  them  twice  after  he  had  established 
them. 

We  shall  see  that  this  epistle  was  written  for  the 
purpose  of  counteracting  the  efforts  of  emissaries  of 
the  Jews  who  attacked  St  Paul's  authority  in  the 
churches  that  he  had  founded,  and  endeavoured  to 
persuade  the  new  made  converts  that  circumcision 
was  necessary  for  justification.  These  emissaries 
came  from  Jerusalem  or  Antioch.  Can  we  suppose 
that  they,  following  the  Apostle  step  by  step,  came 
across — as  they  could  not  but  come  across — the 
churches  in  the  south  of  Galatia  which  were  in  a 
very  flourishing  condition,  much  loved  by  their 
founder,  established  in  cities  where  the  Jews   were 


136  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

numerous  and  where  the  synagogues  attracted  large 
congregations,  can  we  suppose  that  these  emissaries 
passed  these  churches  by  and  went  to  attack  the 
authority  of  St  Paul  among  the  unknown  churches 
of  the  North,  in  a  country  where  it  was  useless  to 
preach  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  because 
it  is  universally  admitted  that  the  Jews  were  few  in 
number  there,  in  fact  there  may  have  been  none  any- 
where except  in  the  capital  Ancyra  ? 

When  St  Paul  organised  his  great  collection  for 
the  poor  of  Jerusalem,  of  which  he  makes  mention 
(1  Cor.  xvi.  1  and  2  Cor.  viii.),  and  in  which  he  took 
the  greatest  interest,  he  began  by  addressing  himself 
to  the  Galatians  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1)  and  next  to  the 
Corinthians.  The  third  place  belongs  to  the  Mace- 
donians (2  Cor.  viii.  3).  We  cannot  doubt  that  by 
the  expression  "  churches  of  Galatia  "  he  meant  the 
churches  of  southern  Galatia,  because  he  wished  all 
the  churches  founded  by  him  to  take  part  in  this 
collection,  and  these  in  the  South  of  Galatia  were 
among  the  most  important.  It  has  quite  rightly 
been  remarked  that  not  all  St  Paul's  churches  sent 
delegates,  and  that  consequently  Northern  Galatia 
might  not  be  represented  and  yet  not  be  excluded. 
We  do  not  deny  it.  But  if  by  Galatia  he  did  not 
mean  southern  Galatia,  how  is  it  that  the  churches 
of  these  parts  were  represented  by  delegates  ? 

He  says  (Gal.  ii.  5)  that  in  Jerusalem  he  withstood 
the  judaisers  in  order  that  "the  truth  of  the  Gospel 
might  continue  with  you."  Now  at  the  time  of  the 
Council  in  Jerusalem  he  had  not  yet  preached  to 
the  Galatians  properly  so  called,  because  he  went  to 
their  parts  for  the  first  time  in  his  second  missionary 
journey,  and  after  the  Council  in  Jerusalem  (Acts 
xvi.  6).     Therefore  these  words  cannot  apply  except 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         137 

to  the  Christians  of  South  Galatia.  In  answer  to  the 
above,  some  say  that  St  Paul  spoke  by  anticipation ; 
because  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  he  defended 
the  liberty  of  all  Christians  present  and  future. 

He  says  (Gal.  iv.  14)  that  he  had  been  received  as 
an  angel  of  God  or  as  Jesus  Christ.  In  Acts  xiv.  11 
we  read  that  he  was  taken  for  a  god. 

Some  critics  deny  with  Schlirer  that  there  was  in 
the  time  of  Christ  a  Roman  province  called  Galatia, 
but  the  opposite  is  now  universally  admitted.  Docu- 
mentary proof  of  the  fact  can  be  produced,  and  these 
proofs  show  even  Pisidia  and  Lycaonia  were  called 
Galatia.  All  the  countries  mentioned  above  were 
comprised  in  this  province  eighty  years  before  St 
Paul  wrote  this  epistle.  Therefore  the  name  was 
established  enough  in  common  usage,  to  entitle  him 
to  address  the  churches  of  Roman  southern  Galatia 
as  Galatians.  Besides  the  Galatians  or  Gauls,  or  the 
greatest  number  of  them,  had  settled  down  in  the 
South  of  Galatia  proper,  and  Amyntas  their  last 
king  had  ruled  over  the  whole  of  what  was  after- 
wards the  province  of  Galatia  including  Phrygia, 
Lycaonia  and  Pisidia.  Hence  when  St  Paul  wished 
to  address  all  of  them  under  one  name,  he  could  not 
call  them  Phrygians  or  Lycaonians,  he  had  to  call 
them  Galatians.  Besides  everywhere  else  in  his 
epistles  he  makes  use  of  the  names  that  were  in  use 
in  civil  administration,  thus  he  speaks  of  Syria  and 
CiUcia  (Gal  i.  20),  of  Asia  (2  Cor  i.  8),  of  Macedonia 
(2  Cor.  i.  16),  of  Achaia  (2  Cor.  i.  1)  in  the  Roman 
sense  ;  no  doubt  he  did  so  also  when  he  spoke  of 
Galatia,  therefore  the  words  :  "  churches  of  Galatia  " 
mean  Roman  Galatia.  This  does  not  however  de- 
cide the  whole  question,  because  if  he  had  wished  to  ad- 
dress the  churches  of  Northern  Galatia  also,  he  would 


138  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

still  have  written :    "  Paul  ...  to  the  churches  of 
Galatia." 

Those  for  whom  the  epistle  was  intended  must 
have  been  well  acquainted  with  the  Old  Testament, 
as  we  may  judge  from  the  numerous  quotations  from 
it,  and  from  the  arguments  being  so  frequently  based 
upon  it.  This  fact  points  to  southern  Galatia,  where 
Jews  were  numerous,  and  where  other  Christians 
who  were  not  Jews  had  every  opportunity  of  becom- 
ing familiar  with  the  Biblical  writings,  for  most  of 
them  had  been  proselytes  before  they  became 
Christians,  as  we  learn  from  Acts  xiii.  43.  In  the 
North  there  were  no  Jews,  except  perhaps  a  few  at 
Ancyra,  and  even  there  Ramsay  says  that  there 
were  none ;  nor  were  the  Gauls  familiar  with 
rabbinical  dialectics. 

Barnabas  is  mentioned  more  than  once  in  this 
epistle,  his  efforts  to  deliver  the  pagans  from  legal 
observances  are  mentioned,  and  so  is  his  defection. 
He  was  of  course  well  known  to  the  churches  of 
southern  Galatia  of  which  he  with  Paul  was  the 
apostle,  whereas  he  was  entirely  unknown  to  the 
Galatians  of  the  North. 

The  epistle  was  written  after  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
salem and  after  the  dispute  at  Antioch,  but  not  long 
after ;  the  narrative  of  these  events  is  too  vivid  for  us 
to  be  able  to  allow  that  any  long  space  of  time  had 
elapsed.  And  it  was  written  soon  after  his  second 
visit  to  the  churches  of  Galatia  (iv.  13)  for  (i.  6)  he 
says  that  the  change  in  them  came  suddenly.  These 
circumstances  fit  in  well  with  our  hypothesis  of 
southern  Galatia.  At  the  time  of  the  Council  in 
Jerusalem,  all  these  churches  were  probably  greatly 
disturbed  by  the  judaisers  who  wished  to  impose  the 
observance  of  the  Law ;  and  immediately  after   the 


OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT         139 

Council,  Paul  visited  for  the  second  time  the  churches 
of  Galatia  promulgating  the  Jerusalem  decrees  (Acts 
xvi.  4)  and  confirming  them  in  the  faith.  It  is  easy 
to  understand  that  an  attempt  to  diminish  or  destroy 
the  authority  of  St  Paul  could  easily  be  made  under 
these  circumstances  by  Jewish  emissaries  or  by 
judaisers  who  had  only  to  give  their  own  account  of 
what  had  taken  place  in  Jerusalem.  The  success  of 
this  counter  mission  was  as  rapid  and  as  prodigious 
as  that  of  St  Paul's  own  mission.  These  simple  and 
ignorant  Galatians  believed  at  once  that  Paul  had 
told  them  only  what  he  knew,  that  his  preaching  was 
incomplete  and  secondary,  that  it  was  incumbent 
upon  them  to  go  to  the  first  apostles  for  a  inore  perfect 
doctrine  ;  and  so  they  came  to  ask  themselves  whether 
they  ought  not  to  accept  what  was  wanting  to  make 
them  perfect  Christians  and  submit  to  be  circumcised. 
Whereas  if  the  epistle  was  written  to  the  Galatians 
of  the  North,  it  cannot  have  been  written  until  after 
the  third  missionary  journey,  that  is  when  Paul  after 
evangelising  Greece  and  making  a  voyage  to  Antioch 
was  going  from  the  latter  to  Ephesus,  consequently 
four  years  later.  But  by  that  time  the  whole  situation 
was  changed.  By  that  time  St  Paul  had  founded 
important  churches  in  which  his  authority  was  acknow- 
ledged without  question.  One  cannot  believe  that 
unknown  churches  did  under  those  circumstances 
make  any  attempt  to  destroy  his  work,  nor  can  one 
understand  why  he  should  be  so  seriously  troubled. 
From  all  these  arguments  we  may  fairly  consider  it 
to  be  established  that  this  epistle  was  written  to  the 
churches  in  southern  Galatia. 

Nevertheless  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  op- 
posite view  are  not  without  their  value.  In  iii.  1  he 
interpellates  his  readers  as ;  "  O  senseless  Galatians," 


140  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

He  would  not  have  given  this  name  except  to  converts 
among  the  Galatians  properly  so  called.  In  the  South, 
they  were  not  Galatians,  they  were  Lycaonians, 
Phrygians  or  Pisidians.  This  is  an  argument  to 
which  we  have  already  supplied  an  answer. 

In  iv.  13  he  says :  "  You  know  that  through  in- 
firmity of  the  flesh  Si  aa-Oevelav  (rapKo?  I  preached  the 
Gospel  to  you  heretofore."  Those  who  favour  the 
South,  translate  Si  aa-Qevelav  by :  "  during  an  infirmity 
of  the  flesh,"  and  they  see  in  these  words  an  allusion 
to  persecutions  and  ill  treatments  (Acts  xiii.  and  xiv.). 
Those  who  favour  the  North  translate  :  "on  account 
of  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh,"  and  say  that  these  words 
exclude  the  evangelisation  of  the  southern  churches, 
because  he  went  to  them  to  preach  of  his  own  free 
will  and  not  on  account  of  an  illness. 

The  blows  and  wounds  (Acts  xiv.  18)  cannot  have 
made  St  Paul  an  object  of  contempt  or  disgust  for 
the  Galatians  (iv.  14).  Ramsay  supposes  that  when 
the  Apostle  was  driven  out  of  Antioch,  in  place  of 
continuing  his  journey  to  the  west,  he  went  to  the 
east  to  find  in  the  lofty  plateaux  a  cure  for  an  attack 
of  malaria.     A  purely  gratuitous  supposition. 

What  we  have  to  find  is  the  precise  meaning  of 
Sia.  This  preposition  may  mean  :  through,  during  or 
on  account  of.  The  ancient  commentators  :  St  John 
Chrysostom,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Theophy- 

lactuS   translate  it   as  if  it  were    ev   aa-Oeveln,  Si    aa-deveia^ 

which  means  during  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh.  Modern 
commentators  :  Lightfoot,  Ellicott  and  SiefFert  prefer 
the  meaning  of  on  account  of.  In  fact  Sid  with  the 
accusative  is  never  used  in  the  meaning  of  during 
except  in  poetry,  or  when  it  is  connected  with  some 
word  that  of  itself  signifies  time  as :  Sia  )(ei/xwm,  Sia 
vvKTa.     In  other  places  St  Paul  uses  Sid  with  the  ac- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         141 

cusative  to  mean  on  account  of  or  by  means  oj.  There- 
fore it  would  seem  that  he  intended  merely  to  pass 
through  Galatia  to  go  to  Bithynia  (Acts  xvi.  7) 
but  that  he  was  forced  to  stop  by  an  illness  (2  Cor. 
xii.  7)  and  that  this  was  the  occasion  of  the  first 
evangelising  of  the  Galatians.  If  that  was  so,  this 
epistle  was  no  doubt  written  to  the  churches  of 
Galatia  properly  so  called. 

He  describes  those  to  whom  he  writes  as  incon- 
stant, and  among  their  vices  he  mentions :  drunken- 
ness, love  of  amusement,  quarrels,  vain-glory  and 
avarice.  "  These,"  says  Lightfoot,  "  are  the  defects  of 
Celtic  races."  But  it  is  not  certain,  it  is  not  even 
probable,  that  the  majority  of  the  properly  so-called 
Galatians  were  Celts.  The  country  had  been  con- 
quered by  the  Gauls,  but  the  old  greco-phrygian 
population  continued  to  exist,  as  is  proved  by  the 
name  Gallo-Greece.  St  Paul  cannot  have  written  to 
the  Celtic  population,  for  according  to  St  Jerome 
they  spoke  Gaulish,  and  would  not  have  understood 
him ;  therefore  he  must  have  written  to  the  Jews 
and  the  Greeks.  As  for  the  accusation  of  incon- 
stancy, that  may  very  well  have  applied  to  the  in- 
habitants of  Lystra  who  received  St  Paul  as  a  God, 
then  allowed  themselves  to  be  won  over  by  Jews 
from  Antioch,  Pisidia,  and  Iconium,  and  all  joined 
together  to  stone  him.  As  for  the  other  vices  that 
he  mentions,  are  they  not  to  be  found  wherever  men 
are  to  be  found  ?  These  are  the  arguments  that  are 
put  forward  by  the  two  parties. 

Now,  what  were  the  readers  ?  Were  they  princi- 
pally Jews  or  Greeks  ?  First,  the  epistle  appears  to 
be  intended  for  uncircumcised  Gentiles  (v.  2)  for  he 
says :  "  if  you  be  circumcised  Christ  shall  profit  you 
nothing."     And  vi.  12 :   "  they  constrain  you  to  be 


142  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

circumcised."  Or  iv.  8 :  "  then  knowing  not  God 
you  served  them  who  by  nature  are  not  gods." 
These  things  were  clearly  not  written  to  Jews.  Again 
when  he  says  (i.  14):  "my  own  nation"  he  implies 
that  his  readers  are  not  Jews.  His  argument  (iii. 
28-29)  is  that  they  will  become  the  posterity  of 
Abraham  if  they  belong  to  Christ.  In  fact  the  whole 
epistle  is  an  argument  that  they  ought  not  to  be 
circumcised,  because  it  is  not  circumcision  but  faith 
in  Christ  that  produces  justification. 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  passages  which  show 
that  some  of  his  readers  were  Jews  by  birth  or 
proselytes  from  paganism.  In  ii.  15  and  iii.  13-23-25 
and  iv.  3-5  he  identifies  the  reader  with  the  writer : 
"  God  has  redeemed  us  from  the  malediction  of  the 
law,"  "  we  were  shut  up  under  the  law."  Of  course 
these  may  be  abstract  reasonings :  St  Paul  wants  to 
make  them  understand  what  the  Law  is,  and  speaks 
of  it  in  general  without  distinguishing  to  whom  it 
was  given  in  particular.  But  (iii.  28)  "  there  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek  "  seems  to  show  that  there  were  some 
Jews  in  the  churches  of  Galatia.  We  may  conclude 
from  all  these  arguments  that  there  was  a  Gentile 
majority  with  a  strong  Jewish  minority. 

After  weighing  all  that  has  been  said,  we  think 
that  this  epistle  was  written  to  the  southern  Galatians. 
But  we  acknowledge  that  our  conclusion  is  not  abso- 
lutely certain.  There  are  expressions  that  cannot  be 
explained,  unless  we  admit  that  it  was  addressed  also 
to  the  Galatians  properly  so  called. 

2.    TIME    AND    PLACE    OF    WRITING 

The  date  and  place  of  writing,  and  consequently 
the  position  of  this  epistle  in  relation  to  the  other 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         143 

epistles,  are  as  uncertain  as  the  persons  to  whom  it 
was  addressed.  From  the  earhest  times  opinion  on 
these  points  varied  considerably.  Marcion  in  his 
Apostolicon  gives  it  the  first  place  among  the  epistles 
of  St  Paul.  Victorinus  about  380  says  that  St  Paul 
wrote  it  when  he  was  preaching  at  Ephesus,  and  that 
would  be  during  his  third  missionary  journey.  St 
John  Chrysostom  considers  it  to  be  older  than  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  thinks  that  it  was  written 
towards  the  end  of  the  third  missionary  journey. 
Theodoret,  Jerome,  Euthalius,  Pseudo-Athanasius, 
and  (Ecomenius  say  that  it  was  written  in  Rome 
during  St  Paul's  first  captivity.  Some  Greek  MSS., 
two  Syriac  versions,  and  the  Coptic  version  bear  the 
note  airo  'Pwjuir}?  Jto7?i  Rovie.  This  opinion  is  held  in 
our  days  by  Halmel  and  Kohler,  and  they  base  it  on 
the  Roman  legal  terms  used  iv.  2  and  iii.  20  and  on 
the  passages  iv.  20  and  vi.  17  in  which  they  see 
allusions  to  St  Paul's  captivity.  But  these  proofs  are 
insufficient,  for  if  he  had  been  a  prisoner  when  he 
wrote,  he  would  have  said  so  as  plainly  as  in  the 
other  epistles  that  we  know  to  have  been  written  in 
captivity. 

In  our  days  these  differences  of  opinion  increase 
continually,  the  uncertainty  as  regards  the  persons  to 
whom  it  was  written  producing  a  number  of  con- 
jectures as  to  the  time  and  the  place  of  writing. 
Zahn,  Belser  and  Weber  call  it  the  first  epistle, 
Kohler  calls  it  the  last ;  Michgelis  and  Kiel  say  that 
it  was  written  before  the  year  54,  Cornely,  Hausrath 
and  Pfleiderer  place  it  soon  after  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem,  Renan  and  Ramsay  say  that  it  was 
written  at  Antioch  before  the  third  missionary 
journey,  Meyer,  Reuss,  Holtzman  and  Lipsius  say 
that   it   was   written   at   Ephesus   during  the   third 


144  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

journey,  Askwith  gives  Macedonia  as  the  place  and 
puts  it  after  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  in 
time,  Bleek  and  Lightfoot  say  that  it  was  written  at 
Corinth  after  the  sojourn  of  three  years  at  Ephesus, 
Schrader  gives  Rome  as  the  place. 

If  we  wish  to  have  any  certainty  in  this  discussion, 
we  cannot  do  better  than  to  take  as  fixed  points  the 
events  of  rare  occurence  that  are  alluded  to  in  this 
epistle.  He  certainly  wrote  after  he  had  paid  the 
Galatians  a  second  visit,  for  he  says :  "  You  know 
that  I  preached  the  Gospel  to  you  the  first  time  on 
account  of  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh  "  (iv.  13)  which 
means  at  least  a  second  visit,  for  the  word  irpdrepov 
may  also  be  translated  formerly.  Again  when  he 
says  :  "  as  we  have  said  to  you  before  "  (i.  9)  he  refers 
not  to  what  he  has  just  said,  but  to  something  that 
he  said  at  some  former  time.  Now,  the  matter  of 
which  he  is  writing  is  the  possibility  of  another 
Gospel  than  his  being  preached  to  them  ;  he  certainly 
cannot  have  spoken  of  that  subject  when  he  evangelised 
them  for  the  first  time,  therefore  he  must  have  done 
so  when  he  paid  them  a  second  visit.  No  long  time 
can  have  elapsed  between  the  conversion  of  the 
Galatians  and  the  writing  of  this  epistle,  since  he  is 
astonished  at  their  turning  away  so  quickly  from  him 
who  brought  them  to  the  grace  of  Christ  (i.  6).  The 
word  ra-xem  is  however  elastic  enough  to  allow  of 
some  space  of  time  between  their  conversion  and  their 
falling  off.  Finally  the  fixing  of  the  date  must  depend 
upon  the  view  that  one  takes  as  to  the  persons  to  whom 
the  epistle  was  written,  whether  to  the  Galatians 
properly  so  called  or  to  the  southern  Galatians. 
And  it  must  depend  also  upon  whether  we  identify 
the  visit  to  Jerusalem  which  is  mentioned  ii.  1-10  with 
the  one  in  Acts  xi.  30  or  with  the  one  in  Acts  xv. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         145 

Those  who  are  in  favour  of  the  epistle  being 
addressed  to  the  southern  Galatians,  say  that  the 
evangehsing  of  these  churches  is  narrated  in  Acts  xiii. 
and  xiv.  and  that  the  second  visit  is  in  Acts  xvi.  6. 
According  to  Weber  the  events  were  in  the  following 
order :  St  Paul's  conversion  took  place  in  32,  he  went 
to  Jerusalem  in  35  (Gal.  i.  18  ;  Acts  ix.  23),  then  he 
preached  in  Syria  and  Cilicia  (Gal.  i.  21  ;  Acts  ix.  30 
and  xi.  19) ;  he  went  again  to  Jerusalem  in  45  carrying 
the  alms  from  the  church  of  Antioch,  on  this  occasion 
some  judaisers  endeavoured  to  force  the  converts 
from  Paganism  to  submit  to  the  observance  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  and  then  St  Paul  explained  his  work 
and  his  preaching  publicly  before  the  whole  church  of 
Jerusalem,  and  in  private  obtained  from  the  principal 
apostles  a  recognition  of  his  apostleship  and  divided 
with  them  the  field  of  missionary  labours  (Gal.  ii.  1-10  ; 
Acts  xi.  30  and  xii.  25) ;  he  left  Antioch  to  begin  his 
first  journey  (Acts  xiii.)  and  evangelised  the  South  of 
the  Roman  province  of  Galatia  {ib.  13-14) — 46-47 — 
and  on  his  return  to  Antioch  visited  for  the  second 
time  the  newly  founded  churches  (Acts  xiv.  21).  At 
Antioch  he  reprehended  Peter.  The  Judaisers  per- 
ceiving the  consequences  of  Paul's  preaching,  began 
treacherously  to  oppose  him,  they  went  round  to  all 
the  churches  that  he  had  founded  and  preached  the 
necessity  of  circumcision.  The  converts  were  greatly 
disturbed.  Paul  wrote  from  Antioch  in  48-49  this 
epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Then  he  went  to  Jerusalem 
to  confer  with  the  apostles  on  the  question  of  keeping 
the  Mosaic  Law  (Acts  xv.)  and  definitely  obtained  a 
decision  in  his  favour)  Acts  xv.)  in  the  year  50. 

This  arrangement  of  the  events  would  have  the 
advantage  of  solving  many  serious  difficulties,  and  it 
is  possible  only  if  you  admit  that  the  epistle  was 


146  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

written  to  the  southern  Galatians,  and  if  you  also 
admit  that  the  meeting  mentioned  (Gal.  ii.)  is  not 
the  same  as  the  one  in  Acts  xv.  Now  as  regards  the 
latter,  though  the  two  accounts  do  not  agree  in  every 
respect,  they  do  agree  in  so  many,  that  the  majority 
of  critics  pronounce  in  favour  of  one  meeting.  And 
in  that  case  the  date  of  the  epistle  must  be  put  later. 
Nevertheless  some  of  those  who  favour  the  South, 
Cornely  among  them,  think  that  the  epistle  was 
written  after  the  Council  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  that  the 
second  visit  to  the  Galatians  took  place  in  Acts 
xvi.  6.  Soon  after,  perhaps  at  Troas,  Paul  heard  of 
the  defection  of  the  Galatians,  and  there  or  at  Corinth 
a  few  months  later  wrote  this  epistle. 

According  to  those  who  favour  the  northern 
hypothesis,  he  evangelised  Galatia  in  his  second  mis- 
sionary journey  (Acts  xvi.  6),  visited  it  again  in  the 
third  {ib.  xviii.  23),  went  through  proconsular  Asia 
(xix.  1),  went  to  Ephesus  where  he  stayed  three 
years,  then  went  to  Macedonia  and  Corinth  ;  it  would 
be  in  this  space  of  time  that  he  wrote  his  epistles  to 
the  Corinthians  and  Romans  and  probably  also  to 
the  Galatians.  The  many  similarities  of  style  and 
doctrine  in  these  four  epistles  are  in  favour  of  this 
date. 

The  state  of  the  churches  of  Corinth  and  Galatia 
presents  a  striking  analogy.  We  see  in  both  places 
the  same  doctrines,  the  same  insinuations,  the  same 
attacks  against  St  Paul's  authority,  and  the  same 
adversaries,  viz.  the  judaisers.  The  Apostle  alludes 
to  the  same  circumstances  in  his  life,  to  his  illness, 
and  his  polemic  is  equally  keen  and  personal  in  both 
cases.  At  Corinth  however  the  judaisers  do  not 
seem  to  attempt  to  force  circumcision  on  the  con- 
verts from  Paganism,  they  acknowledge  themselves 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         147 

defeated  on  that  point.  And  this  would  show  that 
the  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written  after  that 
to  the  Galatians.  Between  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians 
and  the  one  to  the  Romans,  there  is  an  equally  well 
marked  relation  ;  the  former  is  an  outline,  and  the 
latter  is  a  development.  Writing  to  the  Galatians 
St  Paul  proves  that  the  law  has  come  to  an  end,  he 
shows  what  place  it  had  held  in  the  divine  plan ; 
writing  to  the  Romans  he  takes  a  wider  view,  ex- 
plains as  a  whole  the  design  of  God  in  the  history  of 
mankind,  and  shows  that  the  Mosaic  Law  filled  only 
a  temporary  place  in  that  history.  The  ideas,  and 
sometimes  the  expressions,  are  the  same  in  both. 
And  we  may  conclude  that  these  four  epistles  were 
written  about  the  same  time.  Yet  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  was  the  latest  of  the  four,  because  there  is 
no  polemic  in  it,  the  battle  is  felt  to  be  over ;  it  is  in 
no  sense  a  letter  written  for  an  occasion,  St  Paul 
writes  leisurely  and  presents  a  large  and  tranquil  ex- 
pounding of  a  gospel  that  has  waged  a  war  and  won 
a  victory. 

If  all  this  is  true,  we  must  place  the  epistle  to  the 
Galatians  between  the  first  and  the  second  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  it  may  have  been  written  at  Ephesus 
towards  the  end  of  St  Paul's  stay  in  that  city  or  in 
Macedonia,  therefore  in  57-58. 

These  arguments  are  certainly  weighty,  but  there 
is  also  undoubtedly  something  to  be  said  on  the  other 
side.  For  it  is  possible  that  St  Paul  in  later  years 
went  back  to  an  outline  and  to  expressions  that  he 
had  made  use  of  in  earlier  years.  He  was  a  preacher, 
he  spoke  many  times  of  the  selfsame  truths,  and  he 
spoke  of  them  in  the  same  words,  so  that  at  last  some 
expressions  became  as  it  were  stereotyped.  He  came 
to   have   formulas   for   certain   doctrines,  and   these 


148  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

formulas  occur  in  almost  identical  words  every  time 
he  writes  of  those  doctrines,  even  in  one  and  the  same 
epistle.  If  in  later  times  similar  conditions  led  him 
to  express  similar  sentiments,  can  we  be  astonished 
at  his  employing  similar  words  to  express  them  ?  It 
would  therefore  be  rash  to  consider  it  absolutely 
certain  that  these  four  epistles  were  written  at  one 
period,  on  the  ground  that  in  many  respects  they  are 
similar  one  to  the  other.  It  is  not  impossible  that  an 
interval  of  some  years  separates  some  of  them  from 
the  others,  or  that  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  was 
the  first  of  them  and  was  written  about  the  year  53 
as  those  say  who  favour  the  South  hypothesis.  We 
may  therefore  place  the  date  of  Galatians  between 
53  and  58  after  Christ. 


3.    OCCASION    AND  OBJECT 

The  epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  written  on  the 
occasion  of  circumstances  of  a  very  special  nature. 
The  many  allusions  contained  in  it  will  enable  us  to 
discover  the  relations  that  existed  between  the  Apostle 
and  these  churches,  and  also  his  reasons  for  writing 
to  them. 

When  he  went  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them,  he 
was  suffering  from  that  disease  of  which  he  speaks 
(2  Cor.  xii.  7).  But  they  did  not  despise  him  on 
account  of  it,  they  received  him  "  as  an  angel  of  God, 
as  Jesus  Christ "  (Gal.  iv.  14).  He  has  not  forgotten 
the  proofs  of  their  affection,  they  would  have  plucked 
out  their  eyes  for  him  (iv.  15).  Therefore  he  now 
calls  them  his  little  children.  His  ministry  had  pro- 
duced abundant  fruit,  miracles  had  been  worked 
among  them  (iii.  5),  they  ran  well  (v.  7).     After  this 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         149 

first  visit,  he  paid  them  a  second  one,  and  noticed 
perhaps  even  then  that  there  was  some  change  in 
them,  for  in  Acts  xvi.  5  it  is  said  that  he  confirmed 
them,  and  in  this  epistle  (i.  9)  he  writes  :  "  As  we  said 
before,  so  now  1  say  again :  if  anyone  preach  to  you 
a  gospel  besides  that  which  you  have  received,  let 
him  be  anathema."  Not  long  after  this  visit,  he 
heard  worse  news  of  them.  We  cannot  tell  how  the 
news  came  to  him,  whether  by  a  letter  or  by  mes- 
sengers sent  to  him  from  the  churches ;  but  we  can 
see  that  his  information  was  certain,  and  that  he  had 
not  the  slightest  hesitation  in  believing  it.  Emissaries 
sent  probably  from  Antioch  had  taught  the  Galatians 
a  new  gospel.  We  do  not  know  who  these  emissaries 
were.  He  never  speaks  of  them  by  name.  He  speaks 
of  them  with  something  like  disdain :  he  calls  them 
Tive9  some  that  trouble  you  (i.  7).  They  are  supposed 
by  some  commentators  to  have  been  Jews,  but  we 
think  that  they  were  Christians  who  had  been  Jews 
(iv.  29  and  vi.  12-17).  St  Paul  speaks  of  them  in  the 
plural,  so  no  doubt  they  were  many  ;  but  one  of  them 
may  have  held  some  position  of  authority,  for  the 
Apostle  writes :  "  he  that  troubleth  you  shall  bear 
the  judgment  whosoever  he  be"  (v.  10)  and  in  iii.  1 
he  writes  as  if  this  man  had  a  power  of  fascination 
over  the  Galatians ;  however  it  is  possible  also  that 
the  singular  stands  in  these  two  places  for  a  plural. 

The  defence  offered  by  the  Apostle  makes  known 
to  us  the  points  where  he  was  attacked,  these  points 
were :  his  authority  as  an  apostle,  and  his  dogmatic 
and  moral  teaching. 

The  contention  of  his  adversaries  was  that  he  was 
in  a  position  of  dependence  and  subordination  to  the 
other  apostles  in  Jerusalem  and  that  he  had  had  to  learn 
from  them  (i.  16-20),  that  he  had  had  to  submit  his 


150  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

teaching  for  their  approval  in  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
salem (ii.  2-11),  that  at  Antioch  Peter  had  expressed 
disapproval,  that  Paul  had  no  mandate  to  preach  to 
the  Pagans  (ii.  7-9),  that  he  had  not  seen  Christ  or 
witnessed  His  Resurrection,  that  neither  Christ  nor 
the  Apostles  in  Jerusalem  had  made  him  an  apostle, 
and  that  consequently  there  was  no  proof  that  he  had 
any  mission  at  all.  They  said  that  the  rule  of  life 
that  he  had  made  was  contrary  to  the  customs  of  the 
churches  in  Palestine  and  was  not  in  accordance  with 
the  teaching  of  the  other  apostles,  that  he  omitted 
essential  parts  of  the  Gospel  to  gain  the  good  will  of 
the  new  converts,  and  that  he  knew  how  to  adapt 
himself  to  circumstances  to  the  extent  of  even  preach- 
ing circumcision  where  it  was  to  his  interest  to  preach 
it  (v.  11). 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  arguments  of  the 
Judaisers  were  from  their  point  of  view  by  no  means 
destitute  of  solidity.  The  Mosaic  Law,  they  said, 
was  a  sign  of  an  everlasting  covenant  between  God 
and  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  and  the  Messiah 
was  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews ;  consequently  the 
Galatians  should  be  circumcised  if  they  wished  to  be 
partakers  in  this  covenant  (v.  2  and  vi.  12),  they 
should  observe  days,  months,  times  and  years  (iv.  10), 
Jesus  Himself  was  circumcised.  He  had  taught  that 
not  a  jot  nor  a  tittle  was  to  disappear  from  the  Law. 
Yet  St  Paul's  adversaries  did  not  insist  upon  the 
keeping  of  the  whole  law  (v.  3)  and  in  fact  did  not 
keep  it  themselves  (vi.  13) ;  they  pointed  out  that 
the  Pagan  converts  could  by  submitting  to  circum- 
cision obtain  a  share  in  the  privileges  and  exemptions 
granted  by  the  Emperor  to  the  Jews  and  especially 
that  they  could  by  that  means  avoid  persecution  (v. 
11).     Finally  they  said  that  Paul's  doctrine  that  the 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         151 

Law  was  abrogated,  cast  a  doubt  upon  the  truth  of 
God's  promises,  broke  down  the  barriers  against  sin, 
and  admitted  licence  under  the  name  of  Christian 
hberty. 

The  attack  was,  as  we  see  from  this  statement, 
skilfully  prepared.  It  seemed  to  be  supported  by 
the  Old  Testament,  by  the  observance  of  Christ 
Himself,  by  the  first  apostles,  by  the  churches  of 
Palestine ;  and  it  aimed  a  blow  at  the  very  heart  of 
the  gospel  of  justification  by  faith  in  Christ  which 
was  what  St  Paul  preached. 

The  question  to  be  decided  was  whether  justifica- 
tion and  salvation  came  from  faith  in  Christ  alone, 
or  whether  it  was  necessary  also  to  observe  the  Law 
of  Moses  (v.  2).  Was  the  Law  a  transitory  dispensa- 
tion, now  out  of  date,  was  its  purpose  already  accom- 
plished, and  was  there  an  entirely  New  Covenant  in 
which  Christ  was  supreme?  The  question  was  cer- 
tainly a  difficult  one,  and  the  Judaising  Christians 
may  have  been  in  good  faith.  We  cannot  wonder 
at  the  Galatians  being  greatly  disturbed  by  these 
arguments  and  by  these  attacks  on  the  authority  of 
their  apostle,  nor  can  we  wonder  at  their  faith  being 
shaken  (i.  6).  They  began  to  think  that  his  gospel 
was  incomplete,  that  not  being  one  of  Our  Lord's 
own  disciples  he  was  inferior  in  knowledge  in  some 
respects,  and  they  were  already  willing  to  accept  a 
new  gospel.  Yet  they  do  not  seem  to  have  actually 
submitted  to  circumcision  (v.  2  and  v.  10). 

St  Paul  became  very  anxious  (iv.  20),  he  wished  to 
go  to  them  again ;  as  that  was  impossible,  he  wrote 
them  this  vehement  letter  in  which  he  gives  expres- 
sion both  to  his  indignation  and  to  his  affection. 

We  might  gather  from  "  See  what  a  letter  I  have 
written  to  you  with  my  own  hand"  (vi.  11)  that  the 


152  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

whole  of  it  was  in  his  own  handwriting,  but  it  is 
possible  also  that  these  words  refer  only  to  the  con- 
clusion of  the  letter ;  and  we  have  already  seen  that 
it  was  his  custom  to  write  some  part  of  the  conclusion 
with  his  own  hand. 


4.    ANALYSIS   OF   THE   EPISTLE 

Besides  the  address  (i.  1-5)  and  the  conclusion 
(vi.  11-18)  the  epistle  consists  of  three  parts:  the 
first  is  apologetic  from  i.  6  to  ii.  21,  this  is  the  proof 
of  his  independence  as  an  apostle ;  the  second  is 
dogmatic,  it  consists  of  the  whole  of  the  third  and 
fourth  chapters,  in  which  he  explains  and  defends  his 
doctrine ;  and  the  third  is  moral  (v.-vi.  10)  where 
he  draws  out  the  effect  of  his  doctrine  on  the  conduct 
of  life. 

The  address  (i.  1-5). — This  is  a  resume  of  \he  whole 
letter,  it  indicates  the  independent  nature  of  his 
apostleship,  and  states  what  the  work  of  Christ's 
Redemption  is. 

The  Apology  (i.  6-ii.  21). — After  the  short  saluta- 
tion he  begins  ex  abrupto  with  :  "  I  wonder  that  you 
are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into 
the  grace  of  Christ  xmto  another  gospel,"  and  asserts 
energetically  that  there  is  no  other  gospel  but  the 
one  that  he  has  preached  to  them.  He  launches 
an  anathema — and  repeats  it — against  anyone  who 
preaches  to  them  a  new  gospel  even  though  it  should 
be  an  angel  from  heaven. 

Next,  he  goes  on  to  prove  that  his  gospel  is  from 
God  and  not  from  men.  He  was  not  converted  by 
men  from  being  a  persecutor  of  the  Christians,  it  was 
a  miracle  that  brought  about  his  conversion.     And 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         153 

after  his  conversion  he  took  no  counsel  with  men,  he 
did  not  even  go  to  Jerusalem  to  see  the  apostles  who 
were  before  him,  but  he  went  to  Arabia  and  returned 
to  Damascus.  Not  until  three  years  later  did  he  go 
to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  tarried  with  him  fifteen 
days,  and  saw  none  of  the  other  apostles  except 
James  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  Then  he  went  to 
the  regions  of  Syria  and  Cilicia,  and  was  unknown 
by  face  to  the  churches  of  Judea. 

His  apostolic  independence  and  his  mission  were 
recognised  by  James,  Cephas  and  John  who  "  added 
nothing"  to  him.  He  obtained  this  recognition  in 
Jerusalem  in  company  with  Barnabas  and  Titus,  the 
latter  being  a  Pagan  by  birth  and  uncircumcised ; 
and  he  went  to  Jerusalem  to  obtain  this  recognition 
moved  not  by  any  human  influence,  but  on  account 
of  a  divine  revelation.  He  had  explained  both 
publicly  to  the  whole  church  of  Jerusalem  and 
privately  to  the  apostles  what  the  gospel  was  that 
he  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  lest  he  should  run 
or  have  run  in  vain.  And  Titus  was  not  made  to 
submit  to  circumcision.  The  apostles  acknowledged 
Paul  as  the  apostle  of  uncircumcision.  Then  when 
Peter  went  to  Antioch,  at  first  he  ate  with  the 
Gentiles,  but  on  the  arrival  of  others  from  Jerusalem 
he  withdrew  and  separated  himself,  and  Paul  with- 
stood him  to  his  face  claiming  that  "man  is  not 
justified  by  the  works  of  the  Law  but  by  the  faith 
of  Jesus  Christ." 

Dogmatic  part  (iii.  1-iv.  31). — To  prove  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  he  appeals  to  the  experience  of  the 
Galatians  :  "  Did  you  receive  the  Spirit  by  the  works 
of  the  Law  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ? "  Next  he 
appeals  to  Scripture :  he  shows  how  Abraham  was 
justified  by  faith  and  not  by  works.     All  those  who 


154  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

have  the  faith  are  sons  of  Abraham  and  heirs  of  the 
promises  that  were  made  to  him.  These  promises 
were  made  to  Abraham  more  than  four  hundred  years 
before  the  Law  came  into  existence,  and  cannot  be 
annulled  by  the  Law.  We  were  under  the  Law  like 
children  under  a  tutor  or  governor,  but  when  a  child 
comes  to  full  age  he  is  no  longer  under  the  authority 
of  tutors  or  governors  ;  and  now  that  Christ  is  come 
we  are  no  longer  under  the  Law.  He  compares  the 
present  state  of  the  Galatians  with  their  condition 
before  their  conversion ;  then  knowing  not  God 
they  served  them  who  by  nature  are  not  gods.  Do 
they  now  wish  to  place  themselves  again  under  the 
weak  and  needy  elements  ? 

Moral  part  (v.  and  vi.). — He  exhorts  them  to  stand 
fast  in  their  Christian  liberty  and  not  to  put  them- 
selves again  under  the  yoke  of  bondage,  and  he  brings 
forward  a  number  of  arguments  the  one  suggested  by 
the  other  without  any  strictly  logical  order  in  support  of 
this  exhortation.  He  declares  that  if  they  submit  to 
circumcision,  Christ  shall  profit  them  nothing,  and  he 
begins  this  assertion  with  the  solemn  formula :  "Be- 
hold I  Paul  tell  you  "  ;  he  declares  also  that  circum- 
cision is  not  a  mere  ceremony,  he  says  that  it  involves 
the  keeping  of  the  whole  Law ;  and  goes  on  to  say 
that  those  who  were  justified  in  the  law  were  void  of 
Christ  and  fallen  from  grace.  Finally  he  is  confident 
that  he  who  troubles  them  shall  bear  the  judgment. 

Then  he  explains  that  the  Christian  liberty  to  which 
they  have  been  called  must  be  made  an  occasion  for 
living  according  to  the  flesh.  He  enumerates  the 
works  of  the  flesh  and  also  the  fruits  of  the  spirit. 
Let  them  not  deceive  themselves,  God  is  not  mocked, 
whatever  a  man  sows  that  also  shall  he  reap. 

Conclusio7i  (vi.  11-18). — He  makes  a  resume  oi  this 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         155 

epistle  which  is  written  with  his  own  hand  in  large 
letters.  His  adversaries  constrain  the  Galatians  to  be 
circumcised  only  that  they  may  not  suffer  persecution 
for  the  cross  of  Christ.  God  forbid  that  he  should 
glory  in  anything  but  the  cross  of  Christ  in  whom 
neither  circumcision  nor  uncircumcision  matters,  the 
one  important  thing  is  newness  of  life.  He  wishes 
them  peace  and  grace. 


5.    AUTHENTICITY 

From  the  earliest  ages  down  to  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury everyone  believed  in  the  authenticity  of  this 
epistle.  In  that  century  an  Englishman  named 
Evanson  (1792)  put  forward  some  doubts  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  in  the  nineteenth  century  a  reaction  against 
the  school  of  Baur  made  some  critics  pronounce 
against  the  four  epistles  to  the  Romans,  Galatians, 
and  Corinthians,  because  these  were  the  only  ones 
that  Baur  allowed  to  be  truly  pauline  ;  they  redivided, 
rearranged,  and  mutilated  these  epistles,  or  allowed 
only  portions  to  be  genuine,  or  even  declared  them  to 
be  spurious  altogether.  Rudolf  Steck  especially  has 
attacked  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  J.  Friedrick 
(Mahliss)  has  gathered  up  all  the  objections  and  es- 
pecially those  of  Br.  Baur  and  R.  Steck.  He  says 
that  when  this  epistle  is  compared  with  the  Acts,  it 
is  found  to  be  full  of  contradictions  and  historical 
impossibilities  :  compare  Acts  ix.  21  and  Gal.  i.  15-16  ; 
Acts  ix.  19-30  and  Gal.  i.  16-24 ;  Acts  xv.  1-35  and 
Gal.  ii.  1-10.  He  says  also  that  the  language  is  not 
St  Paul's,  thirty-three  words  are  found  here  that  are 
not  found  either  in  his  other  epistles  or  in  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  eleven  words  are  here  that  are 


156  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

found  in  the  New  Testament  but  not  in  the  pauhne 
epistles.  The  style  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  if  we  must  take  those 
epistles  as  models.  And  finally  there  are  passages 
borrowed  from  writings  of  more  recent  date :  the 
Assumption  of  Moses,  the  fourth  Book  of  Esdras, 
Philo,  etc.  We  shall  refute  most  of  these  objections 
merely  by  establishing  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle, 
and  those  that  we  do  not  answer  in  that  way  shall  be 
answered  separately  afterwards. 

Testimony  of  Tradition. — St  Ireneus  is  the  first 
writer  who  attributes  this  epistle  by  name  to  St  Paul, 
but  other  writers  before  him  quote  from  it  or  show 
the  influence  of  it.  Clement  of  Rome  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  (ii.  1  and  xlix.  6)  vaguely  resembles 
Gal.  iii.  16  and  i.  4  respectively.  In  the  2  Cor.  (which 
is  falsely  attributed  to  Clement  of  Rome)  ii.  1  and  in 
Gal.  iv.  27  the  passage  from  Isaias  liv.  1  is  quoted 
from  the  Septuagint  and  interpreted  in  the  one  sense. 
The  coincidences  between  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  of 
Antioch  and  this  epistle :  Eph.  xvi.  1  and  Gal.  v.  21  ; 
Polyc.  i.  and  Gal.  vi.  2 ;  Rom.  vii.  and  Gal.  v.  24 ;  2  and 
Gal.  i.  10  ;  Philad.  i.  and  Gal.  i.  1  are  not  clear  enough 
to  entitle  us  to  say  that  he  borrowed  from  this  epistle. 
St  Polycarp  seems  to  have  borrowed  the  expressions  : 
"  God  is  not  mocked  "  and  "  run  in  vain  "  ;  compare 
also  iii.  2  and  Gal.  iv.  26  ;  vi.  3  and  Gal.  iv.  18  ;  xii.  2 
and  Gal.  i.  1.  The  similarities  between  the  epistle 
of  Barnabas  or  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  and  this  epistle 
are  scarcely  worth  mentioning,  and  those  between 
the  epistle  to  Diognetus  iv.  5  and  Gal.  iv.  10 ;  viii. 
10-11  and  Gal.  iv.  4  are  probable  but  not  certain.  St 
Justin  certainly  borrowed  from  this  epistle  two  pas- 
sages of  Deuteronomy  (xxvii.  26  and  xxi.  23),  for  these 
quotations  are  in  him  exactly  as  they  are  in  Gal.  iii.  10 


OF  THE  NEW   TESTAMENT         157 

and  iii.  13  though  they  are  not  exactly  so  in  any 
Hebrew  or  Septuagint  text  that  we  know  of ;  he  also 
(1  Apol.  6,  3)  applies  Isaias  liv.  1  as  it  is  applied  in 
Gal.  iv.  27.  Athenagoras  (Apol.  16)  makes  use  of 
the  singular  expression  :  "  weak  and  needy  elements  " 
(Gal.  iv.  9). 

The  heretics  of  the  second  century  were  certainly 
acquainted  with  this  epistle.  According  to  Lightfoot 
(Gal.  p.  61)  the  Ophites  made  a  liberal  use  of  it, 
and  several  textual  quotations  from  it  are  found  in 
their  writings  ;  according  to  St  Ireneus  (adv.  her.  1,3) 
the  same  is  true  of  the  Valentinians.  Marcion  gives 
it  the  first  place  in  his  Apostolicon,  and  it  is  in  the 
canon  of  Muratori.  Celsus  speaks  of  those  who  say  : 
"  the  world  is  crucified  to  me  and  I  to  the  world  " 
(Gal.  vi.  14),  and  according  to  Origen  that  is  the 
only  sentence  that  Celsus  quotes  from  St  Paul.  In 
the  Clementine  Homilies  (17,  19)  Peter  reproaches 
Simon  the  Magician,  i.e.  St  Paul  with  having  opposed 
him  €vavTio9  avdeaTrjKa<i  /not  and  condemned  him  Kare- 
yvcoaiuLevov  expressions  that  remind  us  of  Gal.  ii.  11. 
Other  coincidences  may  be  noticed  in  Justin  the 
Gnostic,  in  Tatian,  and  in  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla,  11  =  Gal.  ii.  8.  Finally  Ireneus  {adv.  her.  5, 
21, 1,  etc.),  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom.  3,  16),  and 
Tertullian  {deprescr.  6;  adv.  Marcion^  5,  2,  1)  mention 
the  epistle  that  Paul  wrote  to  the  Galatians.  For 
further  testimony  from  tradition  see  Charteris,  Canoni- 
city,  p.  233. 

Historical  circumstances. — This  epistle  fits  in  na- 
turally with  the  events  that  are  known  to  us  from 
the  other  epistles  of  St  Paul  and  from  the  Acts,  later 
on  there  is  no  historical  situation  to  be  found  in 
which  this  epistle  could  be  placed.  It  supposes  that 
admission   into  the    church  is   granted  without  any 


158  HISTORY   OF   THJE   BOOICS 

difficulty  to  the  Pagans,  but  that  the  judaisers  at- 
tempted to  impose  upon  them  the  obhgation  of 
circumcision  if  not  as  a  necessary  condition  of  their 
being  Christians,  at  least  as  a  condition  of  their  at- 
taining a  higher  degree  of  perfection.  It  presupposes 
also  that  the  value  of  the  Mosaic  Law  for  eternal 
salvation  is  still  a  burning  question,  and  thirdly  it 
presupposes  an  undisguised  hostility  to  Paul  and  a 
denial  of  his  apostleship  and  independence.  Now, 
there  never  was  any  situation  of  this  kind  except 
when  St  Paul  wrote  his  epistles  to  the  Corinthians 
and  to  the  Romans.  That  was  the  only  time  when 
there  was  open  war  between  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  and  the  judaisers  as  recorded  in  the  Acts. 
And  by  the  time  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  a 
change  in  the  situation  is  manifest :  the  battle  is  over, 
there  is  no  longer  any  question  of  the  necessity  of 
circumcision  for  salvation,  and  Pagans  enter  into  the 
Christian  Church  on  an  equality  with  the  Jews. 
None  of  St  Paul's  later  epistles  contain  any  allusion 
to  these  questions.  He  continued  to  combat  Jewish 
errors,  but  they  were  not  at  all  the  same  as  those 
with  which  we  are  now  concerned.  In  the  second 
century  we  may  watch  the  Ebionites  attacking  the 
doctrine  and  the  person  of  St  Paul,  but  we  shall  not 
see  them  attempting  to  impose  circumcision  on  Pagan 
converts.^  It  is  about  the  year  53-58  that  we  find 
the  historical  situation  in  which  the  epistle  to  the 
Galatians  must  have  been  written. 

Doctrine  of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians. — This 
epistle  contains  the  same  doctrines  as  the  other 
pauline  epistles,  sometimes  in  the  very  same  terms. 
Thus   there   are   24   places   in   this  epistle  that  are 

^  Yet  the  8ia  fiaprvpia  of  James  I.  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Clementine  HomiUes  makes  a  stand  for  Circumcision. 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         159 

similar  to  places  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans : 
Gal.  iii.  11  =  Rom.  iii.  20,  Gal.  iii.  19  =  Rom.  v.  20, 
Gal.  iii.  23  =  Rom.  iii.  18,  Gal.  iii.  27  =  Rom.  vi.  3, 
etc. ;  14  places  similar  to  1  Cor.  :  Gal.  i.  8  and  9  = 

1  xvi.  22,  Gal.  iii.  26  =  1  xii.  13,  etc.;  11   similar  to 

2  Cor. :  Gal.  iv.  17  =  2  xi.  2,  Gal  v.  10  =  2  ii.  3,  etc. 
These  passages  express  the  same  idea,  which  proves 
the  identity  of  author,  but  in  slightly  varied  terms, 
which  disproves  literary  dependence.  Thus  we  have 
(Gal.  i.  20) ;  "  The  things  that  I  write  to  you  behold 
before  God  I  lie  not "  =  Rom.  ix.  1  ;  "I  speak  the 
truth  in  Christ,  I  He  not "  =  2  Cor.  xi.  31  ;  "  God  .  .  . 
knoweth  that  I  lie  not."  Or  again  (Gal.  iii.  27) : 
"  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptised  in  Christ 
have  put  on  Christ "  =  Rom.  xiii.  14:  "You  have 
put  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  passages  in 
which  the  similarity  is  most  literal  are  these :  Gal. 
iv.  30  :  "  But  what  saith  the  Scripture  ? "  and  Rom. 
iv.  3:  "For  what  saith  the  Scripture?"  Gal,  i.  11 : 

yvoopL^w  Se  vjiiiv  aSeXcpol  to  evayyeXiov  to  evayyeXiaOev 
VTT,  ifxou  =  1  Cor.  XV.  1  :  yvoopH^co  Se  v/xlv  a^e\(^OL  to  evay- 
yeXiov     o     evtjyyeXicrdmrju     vixiv ;     Gal     V.     9  :     "A     little 

leaven  corrupteth  the  whole  lump "  =  1  Cor.  v.  6 : 
"  Know  ye  not  that  a  little  leaven  corrupteth  the 
whole  lump  ? "  Compare  also  :  Gal.  iii.  6  =  Rom. 
iv.  3,  Gal.  iii.  12  =  Rom.  x.  5,  Gal  v.  14  =  Rom. 
xiii.  9. 

Some  writers  have  concluded  that  the  epistle  to 
the  Galatians  had  been  made  up  of  sentences  picked 
out  from  the  other  epistles ;  but  if  you  study  the 
similarities  carefully  you  will  see  that  the  literal 
coincidences  are  not  many,  and  you  can  easily  under- 
stand the  reason  of  them :  they  are  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament,  or  proverbs,  or  general  formulas ; 
and  the  remainder  come  from  identity  of  authorship. 


160  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

St  Paul  was  not  afraid  of  repeating  himself,  this  is 
evident  in  his  epistles.  Besides  a  forger  would  have 
quoted  more  textually,  and  would  not  have  known 
how  to  present  the  same  ideas  in  such  variety  of 
expression. 

The  substance  of  the  doctrine  is  the  same  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  what  the  former  shows  us  one  aspect  of  is 
shown  in  a  fuller  development  in  the  latter.  Is  then 
the  one  an  epitome  of  the  other?  That  cannot  be 
held,  for  the  way  in  which  the  doctrine  is  handled 
is  too  sure,  and  the  reasoning  is  too  close  to  allow 
us  to  suppose  that  this  has  been  put  together  like  a 
mosaic. 

Style  of  the  epistle. — Like  all  the  epistles  of  St 
Paul,  this  epistle  contains  some  hapaoclegomena : 
34  or  33,  and  some  six  words  that  occur  here  for 
the  first  time.  Every  reader  can  see  that  the  style  is 
the  same  as  that  of  the  other  pauline  writings.  This 
is  so  well  recognised  that  the  epistle  has  been  said 
to  be  an  imitation  fabricated  by  a  forger.  But  in 
those  days  forgers  did  not  trouble  to  imitate  style 
as  they  do  in  modern  times.  Nor  will  many  people 
find  it  easy  to  admit  that  St  Paul's  style  can  possibly 
be  imitated. 

Connection  with  the  Acts. — The  differences  between 
the  two  are  easy  to  understand.  The  writers  had 
different  objects  in  view.  St  Luke  writes  as  a 
historian,  St  Paul  as  an  apologist.  The  one  was 
separated  from  the  events,  and  looked  at  them  as  a 
whole,  as  one  from  the  outside  would  look ;  the 
other  picks  out  the  circumstances  that  tell  in  favour 
of  his  thesis,  and  being  an  eye-witness  makes  known 
points  that  had  been  generally  overlooked. 

According   to  the  Acts  St  Paul  remained  some 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         161 

time  m'^po-s  Tim?  after  his  conversion  at  Damascus  (ix. 
19)  and  at  once  evO'ew^  preached  Christ  in  the  syna- 
gogues ;  then  after  many  days  ^jnepai  iKaval  the  Jews 
plotted  to  put  him  to  death,  he  fled  to  Jerusalem, 
there  the  brethren  were  afraid  of  him,  they  would 
not  believe  that  he  was  a  disciple,  but  Barnabas  took 
him  to  the  apostles,  and  after  that  Paul  preached 
and  disputed  with  the  Hellenists.  In  this  epistle  we 
read  that  after  his  conversion  he  went  to  Arabia 
(i.  17)  returned  to  Damascus,  and  after  three  years 
went  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  he  saw  James  also, 
but  was  personally  unknown  to  the  churches  in  Judea. 

The  differences  in  the  two  accounts  prove  only 
that  St  Luke  did  not  know  all  the  circumstances  or 
did  not  think  fit  to  record  them.  We  are  more  in- 
clined to  believe  that  he  gave  an  account  furnished 
not  by  St  Paul  but  by  some  witness  who  understood 
only  the  exterior  aspect,  whereas  St  Paul  writes  from 
the  point  of  view  of  one  whose  knowledge  was  more 
intimate  and  personal. 

After  his  conversion  St  Paul  retired  to  Arabia, 
probably  into  the  desert  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Damascus,  then  returned  to  the  city,  and  at  once 
began  to  preach.  The  Acts  simply  leave  out  the 
detail  of  this  retirement  into  Arabia.  It  may  have 
been  of  no  great  length.  It  was  only  after  many  days 
that  he  was  obliged  to  take  to  flight.  Three  years 
may  very  well  find  room  in  the  word  kavai  which  in 
St  Luke  denotes  a  considerable  lapse  of  time.  And 
what  contradiction  is  there  in  his  being  obliged  to  fly 
as  the  Acts  say,  and  in  his  going  to  Jerusalem  for 
the  purpose  of  seeing  Peter  as  the  epistle  says  ?  He 
might  have  fled  to  any  other  place,  but  he  had  a 
special  reason  for  wishing  to  go  to  Jerusalem.  He 
saw  there  Peter  and  James.     Does  not  that  authorise 


162  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

one  who  writes  as  a  historian  to  say  that  he  saw  the 
apostles  ?  And  the  difference  in  the  point  of  view 
explains  also  why  the  one  says  that  he  was  personally 
unknown  to  the  churches,  whereas  the  other  affirms 
that  St  Paul  essayed  to  join  himself  to  the  disciples, 
that  he  preached  and  had  discussions  with  the 
Hellenists :  the  former  statement  was  important  as 
showing  that  St  Paul's  stay  was  short  and  that  he 
could  not  have  been  incorporated  with  the  church  in 
Jerusalem,  this  had  a  bearing  on  his  claim  to  inde- 
pendence in  the  apostleship,  and  the  other  statement 
shows  that  he  was  known  to  the  Hellenists,  which 
implies  that  he  was  not  generally  known.  In  short 
St  Paul  could  say  that  he  had  seen  no  one  but  Peter 
and  James  because  for  his  purpose  the  others  were  of 
no  importance,  whereas  St  Luke  wrote  merely  to 
record  facts. 

Much  has  been  made  of  the  discrepancy  between 
Gal.  ii.  1-10  and  Acts  xv.  1-35.  Let  us  remark  at 
the  outset  that  it  is  not  absolutely  certain  that  the 
visit  to  Jerusalem  in  St  Paul's  account  is  the  same 
as  the  one  in  the  Acts.  Critics  of  the  standing  of 
Weber  and  Ramsay  deny  it.  In  that  case  the  dis- 
crepancy would  create  no  difficulty.  But  let  us 
admit  that  the  visit  is  identical,  and  let  us  show  that 
there  is  no  real  discrepancy. 

A  general  view  of  the  two  accounts  shows  them  to 
be  in  agreement :  the  geography  is  the  same,  the  em- 
bassy is  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem  and  the  return  is 
to  Antioch  ;  the  time  is  the  same  and  so  are  the  per- 
sons :  Paul  and  Barnabas  representing  the  Gentiles, 
Cephas  and  James  representing  the  circumcision ;  the 
adversaries  in  the  Acts  are  converted  pharisees  who 
wish  to  introduce  legal  observances  into  the  Church, 
in  the  epistle  they  are  false  brethren  who  wished  to 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         163 

impose  the  Mosaic  Law  on  the  Pagan  converts.  In 
both  accounts  the  Council  is  stormy.  The  result  in 
both  is  freedom  for  the  Gentiles  and  recognition  of 
the  apostolic  mission  of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Now  let 
us  examine  the  details. 

The  Acts  say  (xv.  2.)  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  were 
sent  by  the  Christians  of  Antioch,  the  epistle  says 
(ii.  2)  that  he  went  up  according  to  a  revelation. 
Cannot  both  be  true  ?  St  Paul  supplies  the  interior 
and  St  Luke  the  exterior  motive.  Hort  conjectures 
that  St  Paul  hesitated  to  go,  and  that  a  command- 
ment from  God  reached  him. 

According  to  the  Acts,  the  question  in  dispute  was 
discussed  and  settled  in  public  in  presence  of  the 
whole  Church  assembled.  In  the  epistle,  St  Paul 
speaks  only  of  private  conferences  with  those  who 
seemed  to  be  something.  He  insists  repeatedly  on 
his  intercourse  with  the  apostles,  on  the  good  relations 
between  him  and  them,  on  their  giving  him  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship.  This  was  what  was  important  for 
his  purpose.  He  had  not  to  write  the  history  of  the 
Council.  Probably  the  Galatians  knew  it  quite  well. 
But  he  tells  them  what  they  did  not  know,  viz.  what 
took  place  in  private.  Yet  he  does  not  omit  a  men- 
tion of  the  public  meeting  :  "  I  conferred  with  them 
the  gospel  which  I  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  but 
apart  with  them  who  seemed  to  be  something."  So  he 
speaks  of  two  meetings :  one  in  public  and  one  in 
private.  But  it  was  not  important  for  his  purpose 
that  he  should  lay  stress  upon  the  public  meeting. 

Finally  it  is  objected  that  there  is  a  contradiction 
between  St  Paul's  assertion  that  the  apostles  "  added 
nothing"  (ii.  6.)  and  the  decree  in  the  Acts  imposing 
four  commandments  on  converts  from  Paganism. 
The  answer  is  that  St  Paul's  assertion  does  not  ex- 


164      BOOKS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

elude  the  decree.  The  word  Trpoa-aveOevro  may  be  trans- 
lated imposed  or  communicated.  The  latter  is  probably 
the  meaning  that  was  in  St  Paul's  mind.  For  his 
object  was  to  make  it  clear  that  his  gospel  was  com- 
plete, and  that  after  he  had  explained  it  to  the  apostles 
they  added  nothing. 

We  shall  say  nothing  as  to  passages  borrowed  by 
the  writer  of  this  epistle  from  books  that  were  not  in 
existence  in  St  Paul's  time,  because  the  fact  that  the 
passages  are  borrowed  is  not  proved,  the  date  of  those 
books  is  uncertain,  and  it  is  certain  that  they  contain 
interpolations  made  by  Christians.  Besides  there  is 
no  reason  why  St  Paul  should  not  have  quoted  from 
books  from  his  own  time.  Origen  notes  that  1  Cor. 
ii.  9  is  borrowed  from  the  Secrets  of  Elias. 


CHAPTER   V 

EPISTLE  TO   THE   ROMANS 
1.    TIME,    PLACE,    AND    OCCASION    OF    WRITING 

We  have  seen  that  St  Paul  travelled  from  Ephesus 
to  Troas  and  Corinth.  It  was  probably  in  the  latter 
that  he  wrote  this  epistle.  For  in  xv.  25  he  says 
that  he  is  going  to  Jerusalem  as  the  bearer  of  a 
collection  made  in  Macedonia  and  in  Achaia.  This 
collection  was  begun  at  the  time  when  he  wrote 
1  Cor.  xvi.  2  and  was  finished  after  2  Cor.  viii.  9. 
In  that  2  Cor.  he  said  that  he  would  go  to  Corinth, 
and  that  he  would  either  send  or  take  the  collection 
to  Jerusalem.  We  know  from  Acts  xx.  1-3  that  he 
left  Ephesus  to  go  to  Macedonia  and  then  on  to 
Greece.  Probably  he  went  to  Corinth,  because 
(1  Cor.  xvi.  5)  he  announces  his  intention  of  visiting 
Corinth  and  perhaps  spending  the  winter  there  after 
going  through  Macedonia.  He  probably  stayed  there 
three  months,  and  then  went  to  Jerusalem.  This 
epistle  was  written  most  probably  just  before  he  left 
Corinth  for  Jerusalem.  Among  the  signatures  (Rom. 
xvi.  21)  we  find  the  names  of  Timothy  and  Sosipater, 
and  we  know  from  Acts  xx.  4  that  both  of  these 
accompanied  him  on  his  journeys  at  this  time.  Prob- 
ably Phoebe  the  deaconess  of  the  church  at  Cenchrea 
(port  of  Corinth)  was  the  bearer  of  the  epistle.  St 
Paul's  host  was  Gains  (Rom  xvi.  23),  and  we  know 
from  1  Cor.  i.  14  that  there  was  a  Gains  in  Corinth 
whom  St  Paul  himself  baptised.  The  city  from 
which  he  wrote  had  a  treasurer,  this  fact  shows  that 
165 


166  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

the  city  was  of  some  importance ;  the  man's  name 
was  Erastus,  and  we  see  (2  Tim.  iv.  20)  that  there 
was  an  Erastus  at  Corinth.  All  these  coincidences, 
as  well  as  tradition,  point  to  Corinth  as  the  place 
where  this  epistle  was  written. 

St  Paul  was  at  Corinth  during  the  winter  55-58. 
He  left  for  Jerusalem  before  Easter,  for  he  was  at 
Philippi  in  the  days  of  the  azyms  (Acts  xx.  6). 
Therefore  it  was  in  the  winter  of  55-58  or  in  the 
spring  of  56-59  that  he  wrote  to  the  Romans.  Some 
writers  suggest  that  he  began  to  write  the  epistle 
at  Athens  and  that  he  finished  it  at  Corinth,  others 
say  that  he  wrote  the  whole  of  it  at  Cenchrea  ;  these 
are  mere  suppositions,  and  we  have  absolutely  no- 
thing to  say  with  regard  to  them,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  there  is  absolutely  nothing  that  we  know 
of  for  them  or  against  them. 

The  occasion  for  the  writing  of  this  epistle  was  St 
Paul's  wish  to  prepare  the  church  of  Rome  for  the 
visit  that  he  intended  to  pay  it.  He  had  for  a  long 
time  cherished  the  thought  of  this  visit.  His  plan 
had  been  to  evangelise  Asia  Minor  and  Greece,  and 
then  to  go  to  Rome,  for  his  progress  was  always 
towards  the  West  (xv.  19).  Now  at  last  he  sees  a 
possibility  of  actually  paying  the  visit  (xv.  23),  and 
he  writes  to  the  Romans  to  announce  it.  This  was 
the  occasion.  But  the  purpose  of  his  writing  was 
something  of  greater  importance.  In  order  to 
understand  it,  we  must  first  try  to  understand  the 
community  to  whom  the  epistle  is  addressed. 

2.    TO    WHOM    IT    WAS    WRITTEN 

Christian  tradition  is  wholly  in  favour  of  the  view 
that  this  epistle  was  written  to  the  church  of  Rome. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         167 

Rome  is  mentioned  in  that  sense  in  several  places 
(i.  7-15).  But  recent  critics  like  Loman,  van  Manen, 
and  B.  Smith  say  that  it  cannot  have  been  written  to 
recent  converts,  they  would  not  have  been  able  to 
understand  it,  and  that  consequently  it  cannot  have 
been  written  to  the  Romans  who  were  recent  converts ; 
that  the  letter  is  really  a  theological  treatise,  and  that 
it  was  not  addressed  to  actual  persons,  because  it 
speaks  sometimes  as  to  Jews,  sometimes  as  to 
Pagans.  Lastly  and  especially  there  are  only  two 
passages  that  indicate  the  nationality  of  the  persons 
addressed,  and  in  those  two  passages  the  words  :  "  in 
Rome "  are  not  found  in  the  Codex  Bornerianus 
which  in  place  of:  "To  all  that  are  at  Rome  the 
beloved  of  God  "  has :  "  to  all  the  beloved  of  God." 
Origen  and  the  Ambrosiaster  also  appear  to  have 
known  some  MSS.  in  which  there  was  no  mention 
of  Rome. 

These  reasons  cannot  be  allowed  to  prevail  against 
the  testimony  of  nearly  all  the  uncial  MSS.  or  against 
the  agreement  of  all  the  ecclesiastical  writers.  And 
we  shall  later  on  be  able  to  show  that  undoubtedly 
the  letter  was  intended  to  be  read  by  actual  persons. 
Harnack  admits  that  the  letter  did  not  contain  the 
words  :  "  in  Rome,"  yet  believes  that  it  was  written  to 
the  Christians  of  Rome. 

Origin  of  the  church  of  Rome. — Great  discussions 
have  raged  round  this  question.  We  will  confine 
ourselves  to  a  statement  of  the  facts.  There  was  in 
Rome  a  considerable  colony  of  Jews,  consequently 
the  ground  was  prepared  for  the  preaching  of 
Christianity.  Under  Tiberius  it  is  estimated  that  the 
Jews  numbered  60,000,  and  nine  synagogues  in  Rome 
are  known  by  name.  When  we  consider  that  com- 
munications must   have  been   held  with   Jerusalem, 


168  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

and  that  between  Rome  and  the  great  centres  of 
commerce  in  the  East :  Corinth,  Ephesus,  and 
Alexandria  people  were  constantly  going  backward 
and  forward,  it  seems  certain  that  the  faith  must 
have  reached  Rome. 

But  can  it  be  proved  that  Peter  the  Apostle 
preached  there  about  the  year  42  ?  Ancient  testi- 
monies agree  that  he  founded  the  church  of  Rome, 
but  we  must  not  omit  to  notice  that  St  Paul's  name 
is  always  coupled  with  St  Peter's  in  these  testimonies. 
Cf.  Clement  of  Rome  (Cor.  v.),  Ignatius  of  Antioch 
(Rom.  iv.),  and  Dionysius  of  Corinth  {Euseh.  Hist.  eccl. 
2,  25).  St  Ireneus,  adv.  He?.  I.  1  says  :  "  The  Gospel 
of  Matthew  was  published  when  Peter  and  Paul  were 
preaching  and  founding  the  church  of  Rome."  To 
what  period  do  these  passages  refer  ?  Origen  in  his 
commentary  on  Genesis  says  that  according  toEusebius 
(Hist.  3,  1):  "Peter  preached  in  Pontus,  Galatia, 
Bithynia,  Cappadocia  and  Asia  to  the  Jews  of  the 
dispersion.  Finally  he  went  to  Rome  and  was 
crucified  head  downwards  as  he  prayed  that  he  might 
be.  Paul  preached  the  gospel  from  Jerusalem  to 
lUyricum  and  suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome  under 
Nero."  Towards  the  fourth  century  the  tradition 
became  more  definite.  Eusebius  (Hist.  2,  14)  says 
that  St  Peter  was  in  Rome  under  Claudius  and  at 
the  same  time  as  Simon  Magus.  In  his  Chronicle  he 
says  that  Peter  went  to  Rome  in  the  third  year  of 
Caligula.  St  Jerome  {J^ir.  illustr.  1),  says  :  ^^  Secundo 
Claudii  imperatoris  anno  (42)  ad  expugnandum 
Simonem  magum  Roman  pergit,  ibique  viginti  quinque 
annis  cathedram  sacerdotalem  tenuit  usque  ad  ultimum 
annum  Neronis."  The  question  is  whether  Eusebius 
and  St  Jerome  who  copies  from  the  former  give  here 
a  tradition,   or  whether  they   have   chronologically 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         169 

combined  two  legendary  testimonies.  According  to 
Justin  Martyr  (1  Apol.  26)  Simon  Magus  went  to 
Rome  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  according  to  the 
ebionite  legend  St  Peter  followed  Simon  about  every- 
where to  oppose  him.  Perhaps  it  was  from  this  that 
the  conclusion  was  drawn  that  St  Peter  was  in  Rome 
in  the  time  of  Claudius.  Only  St  Justin  has  made 
one  mistake :  he  invented  a  journey  of  Simon's  to 
Rome  on  the  strength  of  an  inscription  Simoni  Sanco, 
a  Sabine  god,  which  he  read  :  Simoni  Sancto.  There- 
fore part  is  false,  consequently  we  cannot  feel  very 
certain  as  to  the  other  part. 

Orosius  {Hist.  7,  6)  says  very  distinctly  :  "  Exordio 
regni  Claudii  Petrus  Apostolus  D.  JV.  J.  C.  Roman 
venit,  et  salutarem  cunctis  credentibus  fidcmfideli  verbo 
docuit  potentis,  suisque  virtutibus  comprobavit  atque 
exinde  Christiani  Ronice  esse  ceperunt."  This  tradition 
of  the  fifth  century  can  be  traced  back  to  an  earlier 
date.  According  to  various  lists  of  Popes  {Chron.  syr.) 
St  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome  for  twenty-five  years, 
consequently  from  42-67.  These  lists  were  based 
upon  one  by  Hippolytus  at  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  and  even  according  to  Lightfoot  {St  Clement, 
pp.  333)  the  duration  of  the  episcopate  of  St  Peter 
was  perhaps  based  upon  the  lists  of  Hegesippus  about 
175-190.  Therefore  the  church  of  Rome  would  have 
been  founded  by  St  Peter  about  the  year  42. 

That  is  one  aspect  of  the  question.  There  is  an- 
other. Ancient  tradition  is  not  unanimous  in  saying 
that  the  Roman  church  was  founded  by  St  Peter. 
The  Ambrosiaster  ( Grol.  Ep.  to  Rom. )  writing  at  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  says  that  he  found  legalist 
tendencies  in  the  Roman  church:  "  Constat  itaque 
temporibus  apostolorum  Judceos,  propterea  quod  sub 
regno  romano  agerent,  Romce  habitasse  .  .  .  ex  quibus 


170  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

hi  qui  crediderant,  tradiderunt  Romanis  ut  Christum 
profitentes  legem  servarent.  Romanis  autem  irasci  non 
dehuit  sed  et  laudare  Jidem  illorum  quia  nulla  insignia 
virtutuvi  videntes,  nee  aliquem  apostolorum,  susceperunt 
Jidem  Christi,  ritu  licet  judaico."  Is  this  assertion 
based  upon  memory  ?     Or  is  it  a  conjecture  ? 

Probably  Christianity  was  introduced  into  Rome 
by  isolated  individuals.  On  the  Day  of  Pentecost, 
there  were  Jews  from  Rome  present  at  St  Peter's  first 
sermon  (Acts  ii.  10).  Some  of  them  may  have  been 
converted  that  day.  The  persecution  that  raged  in 
Jerusalem  after  the  death  of  St  Stephen  (Acts  x.  19) 
drove  the  Christians  into  Phenicia,  Cyprus  and 
Antioch,  and  may  have  driven  some  to  Rome.  Be- 
sides how  can  we  suppose,  considering  the  frequent 
communications  between  Rome  and  the  East,  that 
none  of  those  who  listened  to  the  preaching  of  St 
Paul  ever  went  to  Rome  ?  All  those  to  whom  he 
sends  salutations  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  were  prob- 
ably orientals  whom  he  had  come  across  in  his  mission- 
ary journeys.  Some  of  them  are  very  dear  to  him : 
Epenetus  the  first  fruits  of  Asia,  Amplias,  Stachys 
who  are  his  fellow- workers,  and  Andronicus,  Junias 
and  Herodion  his  fellow-countrymen. 

Christians  seem  to  have  been  numerous  in  Rome 
under  Claudius,  for  Suetonius  in  his  life  of  Claudius 
says :  "  JudcBOS  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tumultu- 
antes  Roma  expulit.''  Three  explanations  are  offered 
of  this  passage :  ( 1 )  Chrestus  was  some  real  person 
who  excited  disturbances  among  the  Jews.  The 
name  of  Chrestus  was  a  not  uncommon  name  for  a 
slave.  This  meaning  is  not  very  probable,  Suetonius 
would  have  said :  quodam  Chresto ;  (2)  Chrestus 
stands  for  Christus,  those  vowels  often  were  thus 
changed,  and  Tertullian  tells  us  {Apol.  1,  3)  that  the 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         171 

Pagans  called  the  Christians  Chrestiani.  St  Justin  (1 
Apol  4.)  connects  the  Christian  name  with  xp'^a-rog. 
This  Chrestus-Christus  might  mean  the  Jewish 
Messiah,  and  Suetonius  may  have  meant  that  the  ex- 
pectation of  this  Messiah  led  the  Jews  into  rebellion. 
Tumultuari  means  a  poHtical  sedition.  (3)  Chrestus 
is  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Jews  were  driven  to  disorder 
as  at  Thessalonica,  Antioch  of  Pisidia  and  Lystra  by 
the  preaching  of  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah.  This  last  meaning  seems  to  be  the  most 
probable.  Therefore  there  were  Christians  in  Rome 
under  Claudius  (41-54)  about  the  year  52. 

Against  the  view  that  St  Peter  founded  the  Roman 
church,  appeal  is  made  to  this  epistle  of  St  Paul  to 
the  Romans,  because  it  contains  no  allusion  to  St 
Peter;  nor  do  the  epistles  written  in  the  captivity 
contain  any  allusion  to  him.  Acts  xxviii.  14-31  says 
nothing  of  any  connection  between  Rome  and  St 
Peter.  These  negative  arguments  prove  that  St  Paul 
did  not  know  that  St  Peter  had  gone  to  Rome.  But 
he  knew  that  Rome  had  been  evangelised.  It  was  a 
point  of  honour  with  him  not  to  preach  where  Christ 
had  been  announced,  he  would  not  build  on  another 
man's  foundation,  this  is  what  prevented  him  so  long 
from  going  to  Rome ;  now  he  wishes  to  visit  them  on 
his  way  to  Spain  (xv.  20-24).  Rome  had  therefore 
been  evangelised,  and  probably  by  an  apostle. 

If  Peter  was  not  in  Rome  while  Paul  was  a  prisoner 
there,  that  means  that  Peter  did  not  reside  there, 
and  documentary  evidence  shows  that  that  was  so. 
He  was  in  the  East  in  44  and  51  (Acts  xii.  and  xv.), 
at  Antioch  in  54  (Gal.  ii.).  Tradition  says  that  he 
evangelised  Pontus,  Galatia,  etc.  He  may  have  gone 
to  Rome  in  42,  but  he  did  not  remain  there.  Con- 
sidering the  nomadic  propensities  of  the  Jews,  there 


172  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

is  nothing  improbable  in  the  journey,  and  there  is  no 
peremptory  reason  for  denying  that  it  took  place. 

To  sum  up,  we  may  say  that  it  is  probable  that 
Christianity  was  known  in  Rome  from  the  beginning, 
that  Peter  preached  there  about  the  year  42,  that 
Paul  preached  there  about  60-62,  and  that  this  is  the 
origin  of  the  tradition  which  says  that  the  church  of 
Rome  was  founded  by  the  two  apostles  Peter  and 
Paul. 

Composition  and  organisation  of  the  Roman  Church. 
— St  Paul  says  that  the  faith  of  this  church  was 
known  to  the  whole  world  (i.  8  and  xvi.  19).  He 
says  also  that  for  many  years  he  had  wished  to  go  to 
see  them.  From  these  passages  we  may  conclude 
that  this  church  had  been  in  existence  some  consider- 
able time  when  he  wrote  this  epistle.  Its  numbers 
cannot  have  been  very  great.  And  we  do  not  know 
how  it  was  organised.  St  Paul  makes  no  mention 
of  bishops  or  deacons,  nor  does  he  allude  to  their 
functions  or  recommend  subjection  to  them.  He 
sends  salutations  to  twenty-four  persons,  and  none 
of  them  appear  to  have  any  authority  over  the  others. 
If  there  had  been  a  bishop  in  Rome  at  that  time,  it 
would  be  very  strange  that  no  salutation  was  sent  to 
him. 

Let  us  now  examine  two  questions  that  have  been 
much  discussed:  were  the  Christians  in  Rome  con- 
verts from  Paganism  or  from  Judaism  ?  And  what 
was  on  the  whole  the  tendency  of  the  Roman  church  ? 
On  the  answers  to  these  questions  depend  the  view 
that  we  must  take  of  St  Paul's  purpose  in  writing 
this  epistle. 

The  first  impression  produced  by  reading  the 
epistle  is  that  it  was  written  to  converts  from 
Paganism    (i.  18-32;    xi.  13-16;  xv.  9).     Yet   some 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         173 

passages  produce  the  opposite  impression  (ii.  1  ;  iii.  8  ; 
iii.  31 ;  iv.  25 ;  ix.  1 ;  xi.  12 ;  xiii.  1-7 ;  xv.  8).  Our 
view  is  that  the  apostle  in  his  argumentation  takes  a 
general  point  of  view  and  does  not  speak  exclusively 
either  to  Pagans  or  to  Jews.  His  epistle  is  not  the 
result  of  any  occasion,  nor  is  it  devoted  to  any 
polemical  purpose,  it  is  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
passages  an  objective  statement  of  the  gospel  of  St 
Paul.  He  addresses  real  readers,  but  over  their  heads 
he  addresses  all  Christians. 

He  says  plainly  (i.  6)  that  his  readers  are  Gentiles. 
It  is  true  that  eu  oh  may  be  translated  among-  whom 
you  live  instead  of  to  whom  you  belong,  but  the  de- 
velopment of  his  thought  in  the  verses  13-15  seems 
to  require  the  meaning  that  they  are  Gentiles,  for  he 
speaks  of  the  other  Gentiles ;  eQvt)  might  mean  nations, 
but  xi.  13  he  says :  "  I  say  to  you  Gentiles,"  and  he 
distinguishes  them  from  the  Jews  whom  he  refers  to 
as  avToi  He  bases  his  right  to  address  the  Romans 
on  the  fact  that  he  is  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
therefore  they  were  Gentiles.  And  according  to 
Acts  xxviii.  21  conversions  cannot  have  been  numerous 
among  the  Jews  in  Rome ;  because  the  rulers  of  the 
synagogue  seem  scarcely  to  know  Paul  or  the 
Christian  faith. 

Other  passages  seem  to  point  to  a  majority  of  the 
readers  being  Jewish.  The  questions  treated  of  are 
of  no  interest  but  to  Jews :  the  validity  of  the  Law, 
the  cause  of  justification,  the  election  of  Israel;  and 
the  long  discussions  on  the  essence  of  the  Law  were 
incomprehensible  to  all  but  Jews.  The  reasoning  is 
based  altogether  upon  the  Old  Testament  and  sup- 
poses the  reader  to  be  well  versed  in  Holy  Scripture, 
the  chapters  (ix.-xi.)  on  the  election  of  Israel  are  of 
no  interest  except  to  Jews.     All  these  observations 


174  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

are  quite  correct.  Only  we  must  remember  that  St 
Paul  was  incapable  of  reasoning  in  any  other  way. 
Even  when  he  was  undoubtedly  addressing  Gentiles 
like  the  Galatians  he  wrote  in  this  way.  He  was  a 
Jew,  and  his  education  was  rabbinical.  All  his 
thoughts  were  conditioned  by  the  Law,  the  main- 
tenance or  abrogation  of  the  Law  was  the  basis  of  his 
gospel.  And  this  was  of  interest  to  the  Gentiles,  be- 
cause the  Mosaic  Law  was  an  important  part  of  the 
mechanism  of  God's  dealings  with  mankind.  The 
very  thing  that  St  Paul  endeavours  to  explain  is  how 
God  deals  with  mankind,  the  method  of  the  justifica- 
tion or  sanctification  of  men.  He  could  not  unfold 
his  thoughts  without  presenting  the  arguments  as  he 
presents  them  in  this  epistle,  and  no  matter  who  his 
readers  might  have  been  he  would  have  written  in 
this  way.  The  chapters  (ix.-xi.)  that  appear  to  be 
interesting  to  Jews  only  are  really  an  important  part 
of  the  reasoning,  and  the  Gentiles  were  bound  as 
well  as  the  Jews  to  be  instructed  in  the  place  des- 
tined for  them  in  God's  plan. 

Let  us  now  examine  in  detail  whether  the  texts 
oblige  us  to  believe  that  the  majority  of  the  readers 
were  Jews.  Abraham  (iv.  1)  is  called  "our  father 
according  to  the  flesh."  Can  that  have  been  written 
to  Gentiles  ?  We  answer  that  in  this  place  St  Paul 
identifies  his  readers  with  himself  as  he  did  (1  Cor. 
x.  1)  where  he  calls  the  Israelites  "our  fathers,"  he 
speaks  again  in  the  same  way  (Rom.  vii.  1-6)  where 
he  calls  his  readers  "  brethren  (for  I  speak  to  them 
that  know  the  law  ").  He  contrasts  life  under  the 
law  with  life  freed  from  the  law,  he  says  that  passions 
awakened  by  the  law  displayed  their  power  in  our 
members.  Was  that  said  to  Gentiles  ?  We  answer 
that  these  words   may  be   explained   on   St   Paul's 


OF   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT         175 

theory  of  the  role  of  the  law  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  them  applicable  to  Gentiles,  especially  as  the 
Gentiles  would  have  been  obliged  to  keep  the  law  if 
it  had  not  been  abrogated.  In  Col.  ii.  14  and  Gal. 
vi.  4-9  he  undoubtedly  speaks  to  Gentiles,  yet  his 
reasoning  is  similar  to  the  above.  Of  course  these 
texts  presuppose  in  the  readers  an  acquaintance  with 
the  law.  And  equally  of  course  the  Gentile  converts 
were  well  acquainted  with  it,  through  having  been 
proselytes,  or  at  all  events  through  the  frequent  read- 
ing of  the  Old  Testament ;  for  we  must  not  forget 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  held  in  reverence  by 
the  Early  Christians  just  as  much  as  by  the  Jews. 
Finally  in  this  as  in  many  other  places  St  Paul  speaks 
generally  without  preoccupying  himself  as  to  who  is 
to  read  what  he  writes,  he  unfolds  his  theory  of  how 
the  times  before  Christ  were  under  a  law  whether 
the  Mosiac  Law  or  the  innate  law  of  the  human 
conscience. 

Nevertheless  chapters  xiii.  and  xiv.  appear  to  sup- 
pose that  a  proportion  of  the  church  was  Jewish. 
The  exhortations  to  be  subject  to  the  ruUng  powers 
because  all  power  comes  from  God  are  addressed  to 
Jews  who  would  not  recognise  any  authority  but 
God's,  that  is  why  they  found  it  so  difficult  to  pay 
taxes.  The  distinctions  between  meats  and  days 
(xiv.  2-15)  were  also  Jewish.  We  admit  therefore 
that  there  were  Jews  in  the  Roman  church,  but  there 
were  others  who  were  not  Jews,  since  he  exhorts  the 
strong  ones — that  is  those  who  were  free  from  narrow 
ideas  as  to  meats  and  days — to  support  the  infirmities 
of  those  who  were  weak.  And  those  strong  ones 
were  in  the  majority,  for  one  does  not  exhort  a 
minority  to  be  patient  with  a  majority. 

Taking  everything  into  consideration  we  must  con- 


176  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

elude  that  the  Gentiles  were  in  the  majority,  and 
that  there  was  a  minority  of  Jews  among  the  Chris- 
tians in  Rome.  If  there  had  been  no  Jews,  St  Paul 
would  not  have  dwelt  so  much  on  the  vocation  of 
Israel  in  the  ninth,  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters.  Yet 
we  offer  this  opinion  with  some  reserve,  when  we  re- 
member the  number  and  the  weight  of  the  critics 
who  are  of  the  opposite  opinion. 

Religious  tendency  of  the  church  of  Rome.—^emg 
Pagan  in  origin  the  Christians  in  Rome  might  have 
had  a  tendency  to  be  judeo-christian  hke  the  Galatians, 
just  as  if  they  had  originally  been  Jews  they  might 
have  had  a  pauline  tendency  like  Aquila  and  Priscilla. 
Here  again  the  epistle  itself  must  explain  the  matter 
to  us.  For  St  Paul  must  have  known  the  state  of 
mind  of  his  readers.  Probably  Priscilla  and  Aquila 
gave  him  information.  They  had  been  members  of 
the  Roman  church,  and  he  had  lived  with  them  for 
several  years  at  Corinth  and  at  Ephesus.  From  many 
passages  in  the  epistle  we  gather  that  the  Roman 
church,  in  which  there  were  companions  and  friends 
of  St  Paul's,  accepted  a  type  of  doctrine  similar  to 
that  taught  by  him  (xvi.  17).  He  thanks  God  (vi.  17) 
because  they  have  obeyed  from  the  heart  unto  that 
form  of  doctrine  into  which  they  had  been  delivered, 
he  thanks  God  also  because  their  faith  is  praised  in 
the  whole  world,  he  wishes  to  see  them  to  confirm 
them  in  the  faith  which  is  common  to  him  and  to 
them  (i.  12),  he  writes  to  them  only  to  remind  them 
(xv.  15). 

All  these  texts  show  that  he  knew  that  they 
accepted  the  Gospel  in  much  the  same  way  as  he 
accepted  it.  He  invites  them  (xvi.  17-20)  to  watch 
over  those  who  cause  dissensions.  These  were  prob- 
ably judaisers.     Consequently   the   doctrine   of  the 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT        177 

Romans  was  not  that  of  the  adversaries  of  St  Paul. 
But  it  is  also  probable  that  the  judaisers  had  not  yet 
reached  Rome  or  at  least  had  not  yet  created  any  dis- 
turbance there.  For  they  do  not  seem  to  have 
reached  Corinth  much  before  St  Paul  wrote  the 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and  there  is  no  reason  why 
they  should  have  gone  to  Rome,  since  their  object  was 
to  oppose  Paul.  Therefore  they  followed  him  where- 
ever  he  went,  and  did  not  go  to  Rome  before  him. 

The  weak  ones  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  were  prob- 
ably converts  from  Judaism,  and  their  errors  were 
moral  rather  than  dogmatic.  St  Paul  speaks  only  of 
scruples  as  to  food  or  as  to  the  observance  of  certain 
days.  Therefore  we  may  conclude  that  the  doctrine  of 
this  church  was  in  agreement  with  St  Paul's  doctrine. 

The  whole  tone  of  the  epistle  is  in  favour  of  this 
view ;  it  is  affectionate  throughout.  You  feel  that  he 
is  not  on  his  guard.  He  writes  to  friends  and  not  to 
enemies.  Does  this  mean  that  the  Roman  church 
had  taken  his  side  in  the  conflict  with  judaisers  ?  By 
no  means.  It  was  neutral,  it  did  not  know  Christianity 
except  as  the  first  apostles  had  taught  it ;  the  question 
of  legal  observances  had  not  been  raised  in  it.  Other- 
wise we  could  not  understand  how  this  epistle  came 
to  be  written,  or  why  St  Paul  develops  his  doctrine  so 
fully.  In  a  word  :  he  neither  attacks  nor  defends,  he 
simply  teaches.  And  we  must  now  endeavour  to 
understand  what  his  purpose  was  in  making  this 
doctrinal  statement. 


3.  OBJECT  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 

Erroneous  suppositions. — Godet  (Ep.    aux  Rom.) 
mentions  some  sixty  explanations,  and  he  might  have 

M 


178  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

put  the  figure  higher.  "  From,"  he  writes,  "  the  most 
general  and  dogmatic  explanation  of  the  object  of 
this  epistle  to  the  most  particular,  local  or  personal 
conception  of  it,  there  is  an  infinite  series  of  intuitions 
beginning  in  the  very  earliest  times  in  the  Church  and 
continuing  down  to  our  own  days."  A  dogmatic  pur- 
pose is  attributed  to  this  epistle  by  the  Greek  Fathers  : 
Origen,  Chrysostom,  etc.  and  by  the  canon  of  Muratori 
which  says  that  Paul  wrote  to  the  Romans  :  '^Christum 
esse  principiwn  Scripturarum  intimans.''  St  Augustin 
and  the  Ambrosiaster  attribute  to  it  a  polemical  pur- 
pose, or  the  purpose  of  reconciling  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
All  the  opinions  may  be  reduced  to  two :  that  the 
object  was  dogmatic  (Theodoretus,  (Ecumenius, 
Theophylactus,  St  Thomas,  Cornely,  and  in  general 
the  Catholic  commentators),  or  that  it  was  historical, 
polemical,  apologetic  or  conciliatory  (St  Augustin,  St 
Hilary,  Hug,  Eichhorn,  Baur  and  his  school). 

Let  us  take  the  second  opinion  now,  for  the  first 
with  the  proper  additions  and  restrictions  is  the  true 
one.  Baur  says  that  St  Paul's  epistles  were  all  written 
for  some  occasion,  a  superficial  reading  of  those  to 
the  Corinthians  or  Galatians  shows  at  once  for  what 
purpose  and  on  what  occasion  they  were  written. 
Then  why  should  he  have  given  a  detailed  exposition 
of  his  gospel,  why  should  he  have  refuted  the  objec- 
tions of  the  judeo-christians,  why  did  he  give  a  long 
statement  of  the  position  of  Israel  with  regard  to 
salvation,  if  these  things  were  not  required  by  the 
general  situation  of  the  church  of  Rome  ?  That 
church  contained  a  majority  of  judaisers  who  denied 
that  the  way  of  salvation  was  open  to  Pagans.  St 
Paul  opposes  that  doctrine  by  pointing  out  that  both 
Jews  and  Pagans  were  guilty  of  sin  and  that  justifica- 
tion came  to  both  from  the  gratuitous  grace  of  God. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         179 

Then  he  explains  how  God  rejected  the  Jews,  but 
explains  also  that  their  rejection  is  only  temporary, 
and  that  the  Pagans  first  and  then  the  Jews  are  to 
come  to  salvation.  Chapters  ix.  and  xi.  are  in  this 
view  the  very  centre  of  the  epistle. 

With  more  or  less  modification  this  theory  has  been 
generally  adopted  by  Protestant  and  liberal  critics. 
But  it  is  now  losing  ground.  People  are  beginning 
to  recognise  that  it  does  not  fit  in  with  what  we  learn 
from  the  epistle  itself,  which  does  not  allow  us  to 
believe  that  there  was  in  Rome  a  majority  of  judeo- 
christians  with  an  anti-pauline  tendency.  We  need 
not  repeat  now  what  we  have  already  said  on  this 
subject.  We  need  only  say  that  if  he  had  been 
writing  against  opponents  he  would  not  have  been  so 
calm.  If  the  Romans  had  been  infected  with  Judaism 
he  would  have  said  so  plainly,  whereas  he  makes  only 
a  veiled  allusion  to  adversaries  (xvi.  17-18).  Conse- 
quently his  purpose  in  this  epistle  was  not  polemical. 

Probable  purpose. — This  epistle  is  not  an  attempt 
to  state  the  whole  of  Christian  Doctrine.  There  is 
next  to  nothing  in  it  concerning  Christology  and 
Eschatology.  He  may  have  wished  to  give  a  sum- 
mary of  his  actual  polemics  with  the  judeo-christians. 
He  may  have  wished  to  state  fully  what  he  had  stated 
in  outline  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  He  may 
have  composed  a  circular  letter  in  order  to  sum  up 
his  teaching  on  this  point.  All  these  things  are 
possibly  true.  But  let  us  confine  ourselves  to  the 
consideration  of  the  special  purpose  that  he  had  in 
view. 

We  have  already  shown  that  through  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  who  by  this  time  had  returned  to  live  in 
Rome,  and  through  other  friends,  St  Paul  was  well 
informed  of  the  state  of  that   church.     It  was  the 


180  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

knowledge  that  he  obtained  from  these  friends  that 
enabled  him  to  allude  to  the  weak  and  the  strong, 
and  to  know  that  exhortations  to  peace  and  concord 
would  be  useful. 

But  his  principal  object  in  writing  was  to  prepare 
the  church  for  his  visit.  He  hoped  to  create  an  im- 
pression favourable  to  himself  by  showing  what  was 
especially  his  own  in  his  teaching,  viz.  the  universality 
and  the  gratuitous  nature  of  salvation.  He  told  the 
Romans  of  this,  because  he  knew  that  they  did  not 
fully  know  it.  He  replies  beforehand  to  the  judaisers, 
in  the  hope  of  preserving  the  church  from  any  change 
of  doctrine.  He  wishes  to  go  to  Rome.  But  he 
must  first  go  to  Jerusalem  where  he  has  many  enemies. 
He  may  fall  into  the  hands  of  his  persecutors.  He 
may  never  be  able  to  visit  Rome.  Therefore  he 
writes.  He  wishes  to  confide  his  thoughts  to  the 
faithful  who  are  at  the  centre  of  the  Empire.  Hence 
the  epistle  is  an  epitome  both  of  the  external  history 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  interior  experience  of  his 
own  mind.  Bearing  this  twofold  purpose  in  mind, 
we  shall  find  less  difficulty  in  understanding  the 
epistle. 

He  writes  on  his  usual  plan.  He  devotes  the  last 
chapters  to  counsel  and  exhortations,  but  in  the  first 
part  he  explains  and  defends  his  doctrine  and  his 
gospel  to  prepare  them  for  a  visit,  and  gives  in  so 
doing  the  result  of  the  twenty  years  of  his  apostle- 
ship.  His  purpose  therefore  is  both  personal  to 
himself  and  his  readers  and  it  is  also  of  a  general 
nature,  for  in  the  course  of  his  exposition  of  his 
doctrine  he  forgets  the  persons  to  whom  he  is  writ- 
ing, that  is  why  he  speaks  to  them  sometimes  as  if 
they  were  Jews  and  sometimes  as  if  they  were 
Pagans ;  in  reality  in   these  passages  the  Jews  and 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         181 

Pagans  are  conventional,  except  of  course  where  it 
is  evident  as  in  i.  5  that  he  is  writing  of  his  readers. 
This  explains  the  antinomy  by  which  he  addresses 
his  readers  both  as  Jews  and  as  Gentiles,  and  the 
analysis  of  the  epistle  will  make  it  still  clearer. 

The  epistle  shows  the  realisation  of  the  justice  of 
God  in  man  by  the  development  of  three  funda- 
mental ideas :  the  justification  of  man,  the  life  of  a 
justified  man,  and  the  action  of  God  in  the  justifica- 
tion of  humanity.  These  three  ideas  may  be  reduced 
to  two  :  the  salvation  and  election  of  man. 


4.    ANALYSIS    OF    THE   EPISTLE 

The  prologue  is  in  i.  1-15  ;  then  comes  the  body  of 
the  epistle  (i.  16-xv.  13)  and  the  epilogue  (xv.  14- 
xvi.  27). 

Prologue. — This  is  longer  than  usual.  As  St  Paul 
is  writing  to  a  church  to  which  he  is  personally  un- 
known he  enumerates  his  titles,  explains  why  he 
writes,  and  endeavours  to  gain  the  good  will  of  his 
readers.  He  thanks  God  because  their  faith  is 
spoken  of  everywhere,  he  prays  that  he  may  be  able 
to  visit  them,  he  wishes  to  have  some  fruit  among 
them  as  among  other  Gentiles,  he  is  ready  to  preach 
to  them  the  Gospel.  That  last  word  Gospel  serves 
to  introduce  the  subject  on  which  he  is  going  to 
write:  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel  (i.  16-xi.  36) 
and  the  practice  of  it  (xii.  1-xv.  13). 

Dogmatic  part  {i.  16-xi.  36). — The  Gospel  is  given 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men.  But  how  does  man 
escape  the  anger  of  God  and  attain  salvation  ?  He 
shows  how  man  is  justified,  (2)  the  effects  of  justi- 
fication on  man's  life,  (3)  the  action  of  God  in  the 


182  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

election  of  man.  Or  one  might  divide  this  part 
into  two  sections  :  salvation  (1)  as  regards  individuals, 
(2)  as  regards  humanity. 

Justification  of  man  (i.  18-v.  21). — God  wishes  all 
men  to  be  saved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The 
Gentiles  are  guilty  because  they  could  have  known 
God  and  have  not  known  Him,  or  because  knowing 
Him  they  have  not  glorified  Him.  They  worshipped 
idols.     Therefore  God  gave  them  over  to  impurity. 

Then  he  turns  to  the  Jews  to  show  that  they  too 
are  guilty,  and  he  begins  by  denouncing  them  for 
condemning  the  Gentiles  for  sins  that  the  Jews  too 
commit,  shows  that  circumcision  is  of  no  avail  to 
those  who  transgress  the  law,  and  that  the  uncircum- 
cised  are  counted  as  circumcised  if  they  keep  the  law. 

Next  in  iii.  he  answers  objections  that  may  be  made 
by  the  Jews  :  what  advantage  has  the  Jew,  and  what 
profit  is  there  in  circumcision  ?  He  says  that  their 
advantage  is  great  in  every  way.  First  because  the 
word  of  God  was  entrusted  to  them.  If  some  of 
them  have  not  believed,  still  God  is  true,  our  injustice 
commends  the  justice  of  God  when  He  executeth 
wrath. 

Jews  and  Greeks  are  all  under  sin,  as  it  is  written : 
"  There  is  not  any  man  just."  He  goes  on  to  prove 
this  by  quoting  from  other  parts  of  Scripture. 

Justification  comes  freely  by  grace  through  the 
Redemption  in  Christ  Jesus.  God  is  not  the  God  of 
the  Jews  only,  He  is  also  the  God  of  the  Gentiles, 
He  justifies  circumcision  by  faith  and  uncircumcision 
through  faith. 

This  doctrine  does  not  destroy  the  law  through 
faith,  on  the  contrary  it  establishes  the  law.  He 
proves  it  by  the  example  of  Abraham  who  was  justi- 
fied^by  faith  before  the  law,  and  became  the  father 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         183 

of  all  the  faithful  both  in  circumcision  and  in  uncir- 
cumcision.  His  faith  was  reputed  to  him  unto  justice, 
and  that  was  not  written  only  for  him,  but  also  for 
us,  to  whom  it  shall  be  reputed  if  we  believe  in  Him 
that  raised  up  Jesus  Christ  Our  Lord  from  the 
dead. 

The  fruit  of  justification  is  that  we  have  peace  with 
God  through  Christ.  He  compares  the  results  of 
Christ's  death  with  the  results  of  Adam's  sin,  showing 
the  former  to  be  the  greater.  The  law  came  to  make 
sin  abound,  but  grace  hath  more  abounded. 

Sanctijication  of  man  (vi.  1-viii.  39). — Being  baptised 
in  the  death  of  Christ  we  are  dead  to  sin,  sin  must 
not  reign  in  our  bodies,  it  must  not  have  dominion 
over  us.  We  are  loosed  from  the  law,  we  must  serve 
in  the  newness  of  spirit  and  not  in  the  oldness  of 
letter.  Man  is  delivered  from  sin  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  dwelling  in  him,  and  if  this  Spirit  dwells  in  us. 
He  that  raised  up  Jesus  will  quicken  our  mortal 
bodies.  This  leads  the  Apostle  on  to  give  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  life  of  the  spirit  and  of  the  life  of  the  flesh. 
The  spirit  gives  testimony  to  our  spirit  that  we  are 
the  sons  of  God,  heirs  of  God,  and  co-heirs  with 
Christ.  We  suffer  with  Christ,  and  we  shall  be 
glorified  with  Him.  If  Almighty  God  delivered  up 
His  Son  for  us,  how  hath  he  not  also  w^ith  him  given 
us  all  things  ?  Nothing  in  death  or  life,  etc.,  can  now 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  God. 

God's  action  in  our  election  and  justification  (ix.  1- 
xi.  36). — St  Paul  having  shown  that  faith  is  what 
justifies,  and  that  consequently  there  are  no  longer 
any  Jewish  privileges,  since  faith  is  accessible  to  all 
men ;  goes  on  to  show  how  the  Jews  rejected  the 
Messiah,  whereas  the  Pagans  accepted  Him.  This 
leads  him  on  to  speak  of  how  God  rejected  Israel 


184  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

(ix.  1-29),  of  the  cause  of  this  rejection  (ix.  30-x.  21), 
and  of  God's  purpose  in  rejecting  them  (xi.  1-36). 

Justice  of  the  rejection  of  Israel  (ix.  1-29). — St  Paul 
protests  his  attachment  to  his  own  nation.  He  had 
even  wished  to  be  anathema  from  Christ  for  their 
sake.  He  is  filled  with  sorrow  for  their  rejection. 
But  God's  promises  have  not  been  broken.  They 
were  made  to  the  descendants  of  Abraham  by  the 
promise,  not  to  his  descendants  according  to  the  flesh. 
He  proves  this  by  the  case  of  Jacob  and  Esau.  God 
is  free  to  bestow  His  mercy  on  whom  He  wiU.  We 
cannot  question  His  right  any  more  than  the  clay  can 
question  the  right  of  the  potter.  Therefore  we  must 
not  ask  why  God  "findeth  fault,  for  who  resisteth 
His  will  ? "  He  quotes  from  the  prophets  Osee  and 
Isaias  passages  that  foretell  the  rejection  of  Israel  and 
the  election  of  the  Gentiles. 

Cause  of  the  rejection  of  Israel  (ix.  30-x.  20). — 
Israel  wished  to  do  right.  He  bears  them  witness 
that  they  have  the  zeal  of  God,  but  not  according  to 
knowledge.  They  sought  justice  in  works  and  not  in 
faith.  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law.  "  Whoever 
believeth  in  Him  shall  not  be  confounded."  He 
quotes  from  Isaias  and  Moses  passages  that  foretell 
the  rejection  of  the  Jews. 

The  rejection  not  complete  or  final  (xi.  1-36). — St 
Paul  belongs  to  the  people  of  Israel,  to  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin.  He  is  also  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  and 
he  wishes  to  honour  his  ministry ;  but  he  wishes  also 
to  save  some  of  his  own  nation.  He  provokes  the 
Israelites  to  emulation  of  the  Gentiles.  He  shows 
that  of  old,  in  the  time  of  Elias,  a  remnant  was 
saved.  So  now  some  of  the  old  branches  are  broken 
off  and  a  wild  branch  is  grafted  on,  but  it  is  the  root 
that   bears  the  branches  and  not  the   branches  that 


OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT         185 

bear  the  root.  They  were  broken  off  by  unbeHef,  and 
we  stand  by  faith.  We  profit  now  by  the  ingrafting, 
"  but  how  much  more  shall  they  that  are  the  natural 
branches  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree  ? "  In 
the  end  God  will  have  mercy  on  the  Jews.  His  gifts 
and  calling  are  without  repentance.  We  must  not 
question  His  right  in  now  calling  the  Gentiles  or  in 
rejecting  the  Jews  for  a  time.  "  For  who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ?  Or  who  hath  been 
His  counsellor  ? " 

Moral  part  (xii.  1-xv.  13). — St  Paul  exhorts  the 
Romans  to  give  to  God  a  reasonable  service.  He 
speaks  of  unity  in  one  body,  of  the  difference  of 
gifts,  and  of  the  virtues  of  patience,  hospitality,  etc. 
Then  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  he  refers  to  the 
obedience  to  secular  rulers  which  he  knows  it  to  be 
of  importance  to  press  the  obligation  of  upon  the 
Jews,  and  in  the  fourteenth  he  addresses  to  the 
Gentiles  an  exhortation  somewhat  similar  to  the  one 
that  he  addressed  to  the  Jews  in  the  second  chapter 
on  not  judging  others,  with  this  difference  that  the 
former  exhortation  dealt  with  stealing  and  adultery, 
whereas  the  present  one  deals  with  the  judgments 
pronounced  by  those  who  are  strong  in  the  faith 
against  those  who  are  weak  with  regard  to  clean  or 
unclean  food.  In  the  fifteenth  chapter  he  speaks 
again  of  unity,  and  shows  again  that  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  are  called  of  God,  the  former  on  account  of 
His  promise,  the  latter  on  account  of  His  mercy. 

Epilogue  (xv.  14-xvi.  27). — He  is  certain  that  they 
are  full  of  knowledge,  that  they  are  able  to  ad- 
monish one  another.  Yet  he  has  written  to  them 
"  more  boldly  in  some  sort "  wishing  as  a  minister  of 
Christ  among  the  Gentiles  to  have  some  part  in  their 
sanctification.     He  does  not  dare  to  speak  of  the 


186  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

great  work  that  is  being  done  among  the  Gentiles  by 
others,  but  round  about  from  Jerusalem  to  Illyricum 
he  has  preached  where  Christ  had  not  been  named, 
for  he  would  not  build  on  another  man's  foundation. 
This  very  cause  had  up  to  now  hindered  him  from 
going  to  them.  But  now  his  work  in  those  countries 
is  finished.  He  wishes  to  go  to  Spain,  and  hopes  to 
see  the  Romans  "  as  I  pass."  But  now  he  goes  to 
Jerusalem  with  the  money  collected  in  Macedonia 
and  Achaia.  When  he  has  performed  this  act  of 
charity,  he  will  go  through  Rome  to  Spain.  He  begs 
the  Romans  to  pray  that  he  may  be  delivered  from 
the  unbelievers  that  are  in  Judea  that  he  may  go  to 
Rome  by  the  will  of  God.  The  sixteenth  chapter 
begins  with  a  recommendation  of  Phoebe  the 
deaconess.  And  then  follow  a  number  of  saluta- 
tions, in  which  one  interruption  occurs,  where  he 
denounces  those  who  make  dissensions.  Then  he 
continues  with  salutations  from  his  companions,  and 
concludes  by  giving  honour  and  glory  to  God. 


5.    AUTHENTICITY    OF   THE    EPISTLE 

All  the  critics,  except  some  three  or  four  eccentrics, 
admit  that  St  Paul  is  the  author  of  this  epistle.  There- 
fore we  need  not  undertake  to  prove  its  authenticity. 
We  need  only  briefly  state  the  hypotheses  put  forward 
by  the  rationalists  together  with  a  few  words  by  way 
of  an  answer,  then  we  must  trace  the  literary  history 
of  the  epistle,  that  is  we  must  show  how  it  stands  in 
relation  to  certain  books  of  the  New  Testament  or  to 
Early  Christian  writings,  and  finally  we  must  discuss 
the  authenticity  of  chapters  xv.  and  xvi.  which  is 
now  called  in  question  by  critics. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         187 

1.  Ratio7ialist  Hypotheses 

The  first  to  deny  the  authenticity  of  this  epistle 
was  an  Englishman  named  Evanson,  his  arguments 
are  historical,  but  they  are  unworthy  of  discussion. 
Bruno  Bauer  followed  Evanson.  Recently  Loman 
has  come  forward  with  an  entirely  new  system :  ac- 
cording to  him  the  real  Paul  was  not  what  we  have 
been  told,  and  he  never  played  the  part  that  has  been 
attributed  to  him.  Christianity  was  a  messianic  move- 
ment that  arose  among  the  Jews,  it  realised  a  series 
of  Jewish  ideas,  viz.:  the  Messiah  representing  the 
Jewish  nation,  the  servant  of  Jaweh,  the  suffering 
Messiah  ;  these  ideas  became  developed  in  the  second 
century,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  they 
became  embodied  in  Christianity.  The  historic  Paul 
preached  this  movement  in  the  Diaspora  and  in  the 
Roman  world,  it  is  only  later  that  this  originally 
Jewish  movement  became  universalist.  What  profit 
is  there  in  discussing  such  a  system  as  this  ?  Every 
part  of  it  is  fabricated.  And  every  fact  in  it  is  in 
opposition  to  known  historical  facts. 

Steck  (Galaterbrief)  places  this  epistle  in  the 
second  century.  He  finds  in  it  passages  taken  from 
Philo,  Seneca,  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  and  the 
fourth  of  Esdras,  all  which  belong  to  the  first  century 
or  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  Accord- 
ing to  him  this  epistle  is  the  first  letter  published  by 
the  greco-roman  party  against  the  legalist  party 
which  was  endeavouring  to  establish  itself  in  the 
Christian  Church.  This  hypothesis  falls  foul  of 
Clement  and  of  other  writers  of  the  apostolic  age 
to  whom  this  epistle  was  known,  this  means  that 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the   second   century  the 


188  HISTORY   OF  THE   BOOKS 

epistle  was  universally  known,  and  according  to  the 
hypothesis  it  could  not  have  been.  Or  again  he 
supposes  that  the  epistle  is  the  result  of  the 
meditations  of  greco-roman  philosophers.  But  the 
fundamental  ideas  of  the  epistle  are  Jewish :  justi- 
fication by  faith  is  not  a  Greek  idea,  it  is  found  in 
Gen.  XV.  6.  The  necessity  of  grace  is  quite  con- 
trary to  the  philosophy  that  then  prevailed  among 
the  Romans :  the  Stoics  attribute  virtue  to  man's 
own  energising.  The  ideas  of  the  renovation  of 
nature  and  of  man  and  the  idea  of  the  resurrection 
are  quite  foreign  to  Greek  philosophy. 

Pierson  and  Naber  (Verisimilia)  have  imagined  a 
system  in  which  the  history  is  entirely  fictitious  :  they 
say  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  there 
was  a  school  of  Jewish  universalist  thinkers,  who  made 
numbers  of  disciples  among  the  Pagans.  The  parts 
of  the  epistles  of  St  Paul  where  bold  ideas  abound 
most  are  the  work  of  one  of  these  unknown  Jewish 
scholars.  In  the  fourth  century  a  certain  Paulus 
Episcopus  took  up  these  letters,  christianised  them, 
and  adopted  them  to  the  ideas  of  the  time.  Is  there 
anything  in  all  this  that  requires  refutation  ?  The 
absurdity  of  it  all  comes  out  in  the  mere  state- 
ment. 

Van  Manen  (Theol.  Tijdschrift)  believes  that  there 
are  interpolations  in  this  epistle,  and  endeavours  to 
reconstitute  Marcion's  text  which  he  believes  to  be 
the  original  text. 

Spitta  (Untersuchungen)  is  more  moderate.  He 
treats  this  epistle  as  he  treats  the  other  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  He  believes  that  all  of  them  are 
made  up  of  scraps  and  pieces.  In  his  opinion  this 
epistle  is  made  up  of  two  letters,  both  written  by 
St  Paul ;  the  first  one  consisted  of  chapters  i,-xi,  3^ 


OF  THE  NEW   TESTAMENT         189 

and  XV.  8-33  and  xvi.  21-27,  the  second  consisted  of 
chapters  xii.-xv.  7  and  xvi.  1-20.  This  hypothesis 
would  make  a  great  difference  in  our  estimate  of 
the  readers  to  whom  St  Paul  wrote,  but  does  not 
interfere  with  the  authenticity. 

Underlying  all  these  theories  there  is  the  notion 
that  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  there  is  an 
original  part  written  by  St  Paul  or  by  some  other 
writer,  and  that  this  original  part  has  undergone 
rehandlings  and  additions.  But  our  analysis  showed 
a  clear  and  distinct  plan  in  the  epistle  in  which  one 
part  followed  logically  upon  another,  and  our  con- 
clusion was  that  it  was  a  real  treatise.  There  may 
be  digressions  in  it,  and  some  reasonings  may  be  left 
unfinished,  but  we  know  why  that  is  so ;  there  is 
always  a  logical  connection  throughout  either  in  the 
thoughts  or  in  the  words.  The  language  is  identical 
all  through,  and  it  is  undoubtedly  the  very  language 
of  the  other  pauline  epistles.  Can  we  believe  that 
interpolators  were  able  to  imitate  so  well  this  very 
marked  style  of  writing  ?  We  must  either  reject 
all  the  other  epistles,  or  we  must  admit  that  this  one 
is  authentic. 

Finally,  all  the  facts  mentioned  here  fit  in  with 
what  we  know  from  elsewhere.  Cf.  Rom.  xv.  25  = 
Acts  xxiv.  17  =  1  Cor.  xvi.  1-4  =  2  Cor.  viii.  1-4  and 
Rom.  xvi.  21  =  Acts  xx.  4.  Rom.  xvi.  3  =  Acts  xviii. 
2  =  1  Cor.  xvi.  19  and  Rom.  xvi.  23  =  Acts  xix.  22 
and  Rom.  i.  13  =  Acts  xix.  21.  No  better  resume 
could  be  made  of  St  Paul's  missionary  journeys  than 
the  one  given  (Rom.  xv.  19).  The  verses  30,  31 
and  32  in  that  chapter  cannot  have  been  written  in 
the  second  century,  St  Paul  there  asks  for  prayers 
that  he  may  be  delivered  from  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  no   second-century  writer  would   have  dared 


190  HISTORY  OF  THE   BOOKS 

to  put  that  down  knowing  what  had  happened. 
Besides  the  Hterary  history  of  the  epistle  shows 
that  it  was  known  from  the  very  beginning. 


2.  Literary  History  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Itoinans 

This  epistle  occupies  no  isolated  position  among 
the  pauline  writings.  It  is  closely  allied  to  the  epistle 
to  the  Galatians  both  in  style  and  in  subject-matter, 
so  much  so  that  the  one  has  been  taken  for  a  dupli- 
cate or  development  or  resume  of  the  other.  We 
shall  see  later  on  that  there  is  a  close  connection 
between  this  epistle  and  that  to  the  Ephesians,  we 
shall  see  that  certain  doctrines  that  are  peculiar  to 
that  epistle  are  contained  in  germ  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans. 

Between  this  epistle  and  St  Peter's  first  epistle  the 
resemblance  is  significant,  the  doctrines  and  even  the 
expressions  are  connected.  We  shall  explain  this 
when  we  come  to  St  Peter's  epistle. 

Between  this  and  St  James's  epistle  there  is  a 
connection  that  gives  rise  to  a  very  difficult  problem 
both  theologically  and  exegetically  or  critically. 
Without  going  into  the  question  of  what  the  two 
writers  mean  by  faith  and  good  works,  we  must  note 
that  St  James  teaches  that  faith  without  works  can- 
not save  us  (ii.  14-17),  whereas  St  Paul  builds  his  whole 
teaching  to  the  Romans  on  faith  justifying  us  without 
works  though  afterwards  it  does  produce  good  works. 
The  points  of  view  are  different  but  not  contradictory. 
A  list  of  21  passages  has  been  made  where  the  two 
epistles  may  be  said  to  meet,  several  appear  to  us 
to  be  problematical,  the  following  7  deserve  to  be 
inquired  into ; 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         l9l 

Rom.  ii.  1  =  James  iv.  11. 

Rom.  ii.  13  =  James  i.  22. 

Rom.  iv.  1  =  James  ii.  21. 

Rom.  iv.  20  =  James  i.  6. 

Rom.  V.  3  =  James  i.  2. 

Rom.  vii.  23  =  James  iv.  1. 

Rom.  xiii.  12=  James  i.  21. 
At  present  we   merely  mention  these,  later   on  we 
shall  examine  them  in  detail  when  we  come  to  the 
epistle  of  St  James. 

The  doxology  Rom.  xvi.  25-27  and  the  one  in  Jude 
24-25  are  similar  in  some  respects.  But  all  doxologies 
are  more  or  less  alike.  Probably  there  was  a  stereo- 
typed form  from  which  they  are  all  derived. 

The  points  of  connection  between  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  and  subapostolic  writings  are  numerous  and 
certain.  Clement  of  Rome  often  quotes  this  epistle 
or  rather  he  makes  use  of  the  same  expressions  as 
this  epistle.  Funk  has  made  a  list  of  16  passages, 
among  the  most  striking  are  the  following :  Rom.  i. 
21  =  1  Cor.  xxxvi.  2,  Rom.  xiii.  1-2  =  1  Cor.  xi.  1, 
Rom.  i.  29  =  1  Cor.  35.  Sanday  mentions  1 1 
passages  in  this  epistle  of  which  traces  may  be  found 
in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius :  the  following  are  the 
most  noteworthy  :  Rom.  i.  3  =  Smyrn.  i.  1,  Rom.  xiv. 
17  =  Trail,  xi.  3.  We  find  6  passages  from  this 
epistle  in  Poly  carp's  Philippi :  Rom.  vi.  13  and  xiii. 
12  =  Phil.  iv.  1,  Rom.  xii.  10  =  Phil.  x.  1.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  Polycarp  quotes  from  nearly  all  the 
epistles  of  St  Paul.  That  points  to  his  having  them 
in  a  collection,  and  we  cannot  be  astonished  at  his 
having  collected  them  when  we  know  that  he  wished 
to  have  a  collection  of  the  letters  of  Ignatius  (xiii.  2). 
We  find  passages  from  this  epistle  in  the  writings 
attributed  by  Hippolytus  (Philosophoumena)  to  the 


192  HlSTOilY   OF  THE   BOOKS 

Naassenians,  to  the  Valentinians  of  Italy,  and  to 
Basilides.  Sanday  supplies  13  passages  from  the 
Test.  12  Patriarchs  which  are  almost  word  for 
word  taken  from  this  epistle.  This  would  be  valuable 
evidence  if  we  knew  for  certain  the  date  of  that  docu- 
ment. Kautzsch  (Die  Apok.  und  Pseud  des  A.  T.) 
holds  that  these  Testaments  are  the  work  of  a  Chris- 
tian who  made  use  of  two  Jewish  documents. 
But  when  ?  Was  it  in  the  first  or  in  the  second 
century?  Probably  about  the  beginning  of  the 
second,  in  any  case  they  were  known  in  their 
Christian  form  to  Ireneus.  And  finally  there  is  the 
testimony  of  Ireneus :  "  Hoc  ipsum  interpretatus  est 
Paulus  scribens  ad  Romanos  "  (adv.  Her.  3,  16,  3). 

There  is  no  advantage  in  carrying  this  literary 
history  any  further.  No  one  disputes  that  from  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  this  epistle  was  in 
existence  and  was  known.  The  quotations  to  which 
we  have  referred  are  not  textual,  yet  they  show  that 
Clement,  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  knew  this  epistle, 
and  the  fact  that  they  knew  it  proves  that  East  and 
West  possessed  copies.  Marcion  placed  it  in  his 
jipostolicon  with  the  title  'jrpo^  pco/ualovg  which  shows 
that  he  took  it  from  a  pre-existing  collection,  and 
even  in  other  ways  it  is  not  probable  that  Marcion 
was  the  first  to  collect  these  writings.  Finally  the 
canonicity  of  this  epistle  is  placed  beyond  doubt  by 
the  Canon  of  Muratori  which  was  the  Canon  of  the 
Roman  church  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century : 
"  Cum  ipse  beatus  apostolus  Paulus  scribal  or  dine  tali 
ad  Corinthios  prima  .  .  .  ad  Romanos  septima.'"  This 
is  not  the  chronological  order.  Nor  do  we  know  what 
order  it  is.  This  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  not  gener- 
ally in  the  first  place  among  the  pauline  epistles  until 
the  fourth  century. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         193 

3.  Authenticity  of  Chapters  xv.-xvi. 

There  are  two  matters  to  be  inquired  into :  the 
authenticity  of  the  final  doxology  (xvi.  25-27)  and 
the  authenticity  of  the  two  chapters  as  a  whole. 

Authenticity  of  the  Doxology. — In  the  MSS.  i<  B.C. 
D.f.  in  the  versions  of  the  Vulgate,  Peschitto,  Mem- 
phitic  and  Ethiopian,  in  Origen,  Ambrose  and  Pelagius 
in  all  editions  this  doxology  comes  at  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  chapter.  The  MSS.  L.  37,  48,  most  of  the 
cursives,  the  Harcleah  version,  Chrysostom,  Theo- 
doretus,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  other  Fathers  place 
it  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  chapter.  The  MSS. 
A.  P.  17,  and  the  Armenian  version  have  it  both  at 
the  end  of  the  fourteenth  and  of  the  sixteenth  chapters. 
It  is  omitted  in  F.G.  altogether.  These  variations 
of  position  are  very  ancient,  for  Origen  mentions  them. 
St  Jerome  in  Eph.  iii.  5,  says  that  this  doxology  exists 
in  most  MSS.  inplerisque  codicibus  which  implies  that 
it  was  not  in  all  of  them.  Another  objection  is  that 
the  doxology  does  not  fit  in  with  the  meaning  either 
in  xiv.  23  or  in  xvi.  24  and  that  St  Paul  does  not 
usually  end  his  epistles  with  a  doxology.  The  expres- 
sions are  obscure,  it  is  said,  and  meaningless,  the 
sentence  is  embarrassed  and  redundant,  the  thoughts 
are  not  pauline.  Therefore  this  doxology  whose 
position  is  unknown  is  unauthentic.  We  have  to 
examine  two  points : 

The  place  of  the  Doxology. — From  a  textual  point 
of  view,  its  place  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  chapter 
has  most  of  the  documentary  evidence  in  its  favour ; 
three  different  groups  and  the  ancient  MSS,  lend  it 
their  authority.  Yet  the  Greek  Church  from  the 
fourth  century  seems  to  have  had  it  at  the  end  of  the 


194  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

fourteenth  chapter.  It  may  have  been  placed  there 
because  as  a  rule  the  pauline  epistles  have  no  doxology 
at  the  end,  the  doxologies  occur  in  the  body  of  the 
letters ;  the  context  of  xiv.  26  seemed  to  require  it, 
perhaps  that  is  why  it  was  put  there.  One  cannot 
imagine  any  reason  why  it  should  have  been  taken 
from  the  fourteenth  to  be  placed  in  the  sixteenth.  It 
is  also  possible  that  some  MSS.  conformed  to  the 
way  in  which  it  was  the  custom  to  read  this  epistle 
in  public ;  the  last  two  chapters  were  probably  not 
read  out  aloud  on  account  of  their  purely  historical 
and  personal  character,  so  they  were  left  out  of  the 
liturgical  MSS.  and  the  doxology  was  transferred  to 
the  fourteenth  chapter  to  serve  as  a  termination.  As 
for  the  MSS.  that  have  it  in  both  places,  the  writers 
evidently  did  not  know  to  which  place  it  belonged. 

The  great  majority  of  the  authorities  have  the 
doxology  in  one  of  the  places.  Only  two  uncial  MSS. 
omit  it  altogether,  F.  and  G.  and  they  constitute  only 
one  authority  because  they  come  both  from  one  arche- 
type, moreover  they  omit  it  with  hesitation,  for  G. 
leaves  a  space  for  it  and  F.  puts  it  in  in  Latin. 
Nothing  can  be  said  as  to  the  MSS.  to  which  those 
few  words  of  St  Jerome  allude,  because  we  know 
neither  their  number  nor  importance.  Internal  reasons 
against  the  authenticity  are  not  very  conclusive.  St 
Paul  might  have  ended  this  epistle  with  a  doxology 
on  account  of  its  dogmatic  importance.  The  em- 
barrassed construction,  the  pleonasms  and  the  equivocal 
expressions  are  not  foreign  to  his  ordinary  style.  In 
fact  they  are  recognised  as  pauline,  for  they  are  said 
to  have  been  borrowed  from  other  passages  that  are 
authentic.  There  is  therefore  no  plausible  reason  for 
pronouncing  the  doxology  to  be  unauthentic,  or  for 
placing  it  in  the  fourteenth  chapter. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         195 

4.  Authenticity  of  the  Fifteenth  and  Sixteenth  Chapters 

Eacternal  objections. — According  to  Origen,  Marcion 
cut  off  from  this  epistle  everything  after :  Onuie  quod 
non  est  ex  fide  peccatuvi  est  (xiv.  23).  TertuUian  says 
that  the  words  tribunal  Christi  are  at  the  end  of  the 
epistle,  and  they  are  in  xiv.  10,  therefore  TertuUian 
did  not  know  the  last  two  chapters.  Neither  he  nor 
Ireneus  nor  probably  St  Cyprian  ever  quoted  from 
them.  The  MSS.  that  had  the  doxology  in  chapter 
fourteen  had  not  the  last  two  chapters  probably. 

These  arguments  do  not  prove  that  the  church  did 
not  originally  receive  the  two  chapters  as  having  been 
written  by  St  Paul.  If  Marcion  cut  them  off,  that 
proves  that  they  were  there  before  that  heretic  cut 
them  off;  Marcion  was  moved  by  considerations  of 
dogma  and  not  by  critical  considerations,  his  act  is 
the  best  proof  that  the  chapters  are  authentic.  As 
for  TertuUian,  he  was  arguing  against  Marcion,  and 
so  it  was  natural  for  him  to  say  that  tribunal  Christi 
was  at  the  end  of  the  epistle,  since  for  Marcion  the 
fourteenth  chapter  was  the  last.  If  TertuUian,  Ireneus 
and  Cyprian  never  quote  from  these  chapters,  we  can 
easily  understand  why  they  do  not :  it  is  because  they 
are  dogmatically  of  so  little  importance.  Finally  the 
presence  of  the  doxology  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth 
chapter  can  be  explained  much  more  simply  than  by 
the  suppression  of  the  two  chapters. 

Internal  alignments  and  hypotheses. — Baur  (Paulus, 
p.  393),  relying  upon  internal  arguments  which  we  shall 
discuss  farther  on,  rejects  bodily  the  two  chapters. 
That  is  a  radical  method,  but  it  solves  no  difficulty 
and  it  creates  serious  difficulties.  Why  should  the 
epistle  end  with :  "  All  that  is  not  of  faith  is  sin "  ? 


196  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

That  is  not  a  conclusion.  The  epistle  should  go  at 
least  as  far  as  xv.  6  to  find  a  conclusion.  But  the 
following  verses  down  to  13  are  quite  in  the  pauline 
manner,  his  custom  is  to  prove  what  he  says  by  texts 
from  Scripture.  The  other  verses  contain  historical 
details,  and  we  have  seen  that  they  are  in  agreement 
with  facts  that  we  know  of  the  life  of  St  Paul.  Finally 
how  can  one  understand  an  interpolater  putting  in 
all  those  names  contrary  to  St  Paul's  custom  in  the 
sixteenth  chapter  ?     What  advantage  was  there  in  it  ? 

Renan  finds  Baur's  solution  clumsy.  Taking  into 
account  all  the  internal  and  external  facts,  he  con- 
jectures that  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  was  a  circular 
letter  to  which  an  ending  was  attached  that  varied 
with  the  church  to  which  it  was  sent ;  there  was  one 
copy  for  the  Romans  containing  chapters  i.-xi.  and  xv., 
one  for  the  Ephesians  with  the  chapters  i.-xi  v.  and  xvi. 
1-20,  one  for  the  Thessalonians  with  the  chapters  i.-xiv. 
and  xvi.  21-24,  one  for  some  unknown  church  with 
the  chapters  i.-xiv.  and  xvi.  25-27. 

Renan  based  all  this  manipulation  on  internal 
arguments  that  we  shall  examine  farther  on,  but 
especially  on  the  four  terminations  that  he  found  in 
the  epistle  :  xv.  33,  xvi.  20-24-27.  Now  the  termina- 
tion in  xvi.  24  is  a  repetition  of  one  in  verse  20  which 
is  not  found  in  the  ancient  MSS.,  it  is  not  found  in 
j<  A. B.C.,  nor  in  the  Codices  of  the  Vulgate, 
Amiatinus,  Fuldensis,  Harleiensis,  nor  in  the  versions 
Bohairic  or  Ethiopian,  nor  in  Origen's ;  it  is  inserted 
in  the  MSS.  D.E.F.G.  at  verse  24,  but  omitted  at 
verse  20.  The  Codex  L.,  the  Vulgate,  St  John 
Chrysostom  and  all  the  later  authorities  have  it  both 
in  verse  20  and  24.  Therefore  the  original  text  must 
have  had  the  blessing  in  verse  20  and  nowhere  else. 
External  evidence  is  in  favour  of  that  place,  and  the 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         197 

reduplication  can  be  explained.  There  remain  there- 
fore only  two  blessings  (xv,  33  and  xvi.  20).  In 
xxvii.  there  is  a  doxology  but  not  a  final  blessing. 
Then  what  becomes  of  the  four  churches  among 
which  this  epistle  was  to  be  divided  ? 

Renan's  conjecture  has  consequently  been  set  aside. 
But  a  great  many  critics :  Mangold,  Reuss,  Ritschl, 
Holsten,  Weiss,  Weizsacker,  Farrar,  maintain  that 
the  list  of  persons  to  whom  salutations  were  sent 
belonged  to  the  copy  intended  for  the  church  of 
Ephesus.  Some  critics  attribute  the  verses  xvi.  1-2 
to  the  copy  intended  for  Rome.  Let  us  briefly 
state  and  discuss  the  arguments  that  are  put  forward 
in  favour  of  these  hypotheses. 

It  is  said  that  certain  passages  in  the  sixteenth 
chapter  cannot  have  been  written  by  St  Paul,  since 
in  XV.  20  he  takes  credit  for  not  preaching  where 
Christ  had  been  announced.  How  could  he  write 
that  to  Christians  whom  he  had  not  evangelised  ?  In 
answer  we  say  that  the  idea  of  not  trespassing  on 
another  man's  field  of  labour  is  quite  pauline  (2  Cor. 
XX.  15-16),  and  he  was  not  trespassing  in  writing  to 
the  Romans,  because  he  was  writing  to  Gentiles, 
and  was  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  according  to  the 
agreement  made  in  Jerusalem  between  him  and  the 
other  apostles  (Gal,  ii.  3). 

He  sends  salutations  to  24  persons.  Can  he 
have  known  such  a  number  in  a  town  which  he 
had  never  visited  ?  And  how  is  it  that  he  sends 
salutations  to  so  many  persons  here,  when  in  his 
epistles  to  churches  in  which  he  had  lived  he  sends 
no  salutations  to  individuals  except  in  2  Tim.  iv.  19 
and  Col.  iv.  15  ?  In  answer  let  us  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  16  of  these  persons  have  Greek 
names,  consequently  they  may  be  Orientals,  and  he 


198  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

may  have  become  acquainted  with  them  in  the  East. 
People  who  Hved  upon  the  shores  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean were  nomadic,  and  sooner  or  later  they  went 
to  try  their  fortunes  in  Rome.  We  know  from 
Latin  historians  that  people  from  all  parts  of  the 
world  poured  into  Rome.  Probably  St  Paul 
mentioned  every  person  that  he  knew  in  order 
that  no  one  might  be  jealous,  and  of  course  he 
could  not  do  this  in  other  epistles  when  he  knew 
all  those  to  whom  he  wrote.  Finally  there  is  a 
salutation  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  whom  he 
had  not  preached  the  Gospel  to. 

It  is  objected  also  that  Priscilla  and  Aquila  cannot 
have  been  in  Rome  at  this  time,  because  they  were 
at  Ephesus  (1  Cor.  xvi.  19)  a  few  months  earlier,  and 
we  find  them  there  again  (2  Tim.  iv.  19).  These 
facts  are  correct.  But  they  do  not  prove  that  these 
persons  were  not  in  Rome.  For  they  were  great 
travellers.  Originally  they  belonged  to  Pontus,  they 
were  expelled  from  Rome  under  Claudius,  they  went 
to  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.),  then  to  Ephesus  {lb.  and  1  Cor. 
xvi.  19).  Why  should  they  not  have  gone  to  Rome 
again  ?  Nine  months  elapse  between  the  mention 
of  their  stay  in  Ephesus  and  that  of  their  being  in 
Rome.  And  why  should  they  not  have  gone  back 
again  to  Ephesus  ?  There  is  room  for  a  stay  in 
Rome  of  some  years. 

Of  the  24  mentioned  16  have  Greek  names,  1  a 
Hebrew  name,  and  7  Latin  names.  Garucci  has 
discovered  twice  as  many  Latin  as  Greek  names 
among  the  Jewish  inscriptions  in  Rome.  But  we 
can  easily  understand  that  St  Paul  knew  more 
Greeks.  Besides  most  of  these  Jewish  inscriptions 
belong  to  a  later  period.  If  we  want  to  know  how 
the   church    of  Rome  was  constituted  in  primitive 


OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT         199 

times,  we  need  only  look  at  the  list  of  the  Popes 
of  the  first  two  centuries :  we  shall  find  12  Greek 
names  and  only  3  Latin  names.  Garucci's  statistics 
do  not  seem  very  reliable,  for  Schiirer  has  published 
45  inscriptions  taken  from  the  Jewish  cemeteries  in 
the  times  of  the  Emperors ;  25  names  in  them  are 
Greek,  3  are  Hebrew,  and  17  are  Latin. 

Lightfoot  (Ep.  to  Philip,  p.  171)  has  examined 
collections  of  the  mortuary  inscriptions  in  Rome  with 
the  result  that  all  the  names  mentioned  in  the  six- 
teenth chapter  of  this  epistle,  even  those  that  are 
uncommon  names,  occur  in  the  Columbaria  of  the 
household  of  the  Cesars  in  the  first  century.  That 
does  not  prove  that  the  persons  in  the  epistle  are  the 
same  as  those  who  are  mentioned  in  the  epitaphs, 
but  it  proves  that  those  names  were  in  use  in  Rome. 
On  the  other  hand,  at  Ephesus  among  the  mortuary 
inscriptions  only  three  out  of  the  24  can  be  found, 
and  in  Asia  Minor  generally  only  12 ;  Rome  is  the 
only  place  where  all  these  names :  Greek,  Latin,  and 
Jewish  are  to  be  found. 

In  conclusion  therefore  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
rejecting  these  two  chapters  as  unauthentic,  or  for 
supposing  that  they  do  not  belong  to  this  epistle. 
We  believe  then  according  to  the  whole  of  Christian 
tradition  that  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  as  it  stands 
in  our  editions  is  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  the 
work  of  St  Paul  and  that  it  was  addressed  to  the 
church  of  Rome. 


CHAPTER  VI 

EPISTLES   OF  THE   CAPTIVITY 

The  epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians 
and  Philemon  constitute  a  distinct  group,  separated 
from  the  other  pauline  epistles  both  by  style  and  by 
doctrine,  and  yet  are  closely  connected  with  those 
other  epistles.  It  is  impossible  to  study  them  one 
by  one,  because  the  connection  between  them  is  so 
marked,  especially  as  regards  the  time  and  place  of 
composition ;  therefore  we  will  begin  with  what 
applies  to  all  the  four,  and  then  we  will  treat  of  the 
special  questions  that  refer  to  each  one  of  them. 

St  Paul  was  probably  at  Corinth,  where  he  spent 
the  winter  of  57-58,  when  he  wrote  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans.  He  left  that  city  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  but 
instead  of  going  by  sea,  which  was  the  shortest  way, 
he  went  by  land  through  JVI  acedonia  to  Philippi,  then 
to  Troas  and  Miletus  where  he  embarked  for  Tyre 
and  Cesarea,  and  finally  reached  Jerusalem.  He  took 
this  route  in  order  to  avoid  the  snares  of  the  Jews 
(Acts  XX.  3),  and  also  because  he  wished  once  more 
to  visit  the  churches  that  he  had  founded ;  he  never 
hoped  to  see  them  again,  for  all  his  presentiments 
regarding  his  journey  to  Jerusalem  were  sad  {ib.  23) ; 
and  in  any  case  his  plan  was  after  this  voyage  to  go 
to  Rome  and  to  the  West  (Rom.  xv.  24). 

The  next  day  after  he  reached  Jerusalem,  he  went 
to  see  James  the  Apostle  in  whose  house  the  ancients 
were  assembled,  St  Paul  narrated  to  them  what  God 


BOOKS   OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT      201 

had  accomplished  through  his  ministry  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  they  gave  glory  to  God  (Acts  xxi.  17- 
20).  Nevertheless,  as  many  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
believed  that  Paul  taught  that  the  Jews  should  no 
longer  keep  the  Mosaic  Law,  the  ancients  exhorted 
him  to  take  with  him  four  men  who  were  under  a 
vow,  to  go  with  them  to  the  Temple,  and  to  purify 
himself  with  them,  in  order  that  all  men  might  know 
that  what  he  was  accused  of  was  false  and  that  he 
walked  keeping  the  law.  Paul  consented,  went  to 
the  Temple,  and  performed  the  requisite  purifications 
and  sacrifices.  But  some  Jews  from  Asia  recognised 
him  in  the  Temple,  stirred  up  the  people  against 
him,  and  he  was  saved  from  their  fury  only  by  the 
intervention  of  Roman  soldiers  who  came  down  on 
account  of  the  noise  of  the  tumult  {ib.  20-24).  They 
made  Paul  a  prisoner  and  took  him  to  Cesarea  to  the 
Roman  proconsul  Felix,  he  remained  there  a  prisoner 
for  two  years,  and  then  as  he  appealed  to  the  Em- 
peror, Festus  the  successor  of  Felix  sent  him  to  Rome. 
In  Rome  he  was  a  prisoner  for  two  years,  he  was 
allowed  to  dwell  in  a  lodging  of  his  own  in  the 
custody  of  a  soldier,  and  he  was  able  to  receive 
visitors  and  to  preach  the  Gospel.  It  is  during  these 
years  of  captivity  that  in  all  probability  he  wrote 
these  four  epistles. 


1.    TIME    AND    PLACE    OF    WRITING 

He  makes  mention  of  his  chains  and  his  captivity 
in  all  these  epistles :  Eph.  vi.  20 ;  Col.  iv.  3 ;  Philip. 
i.  13 ;  Eph.  iii.  1  and  iv.  1  ;  Col.  iv.  10-18 ;  Philem. 
9-23 ;  Phihp.  i.  7-17.  It  is  not  easy  to  say  what 
period  of  his  imprisonment  he  alludes  to  in  these 


202  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

passages.  We  shall  see  later  on  that  it  seems  certain 
that  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians  was  written  from 
Rome ;  the  other  three  were  entrusted  to  the  same 
bearer  Tychicus  (Eph.  vi.  21  ;  Col.  iv.  7)  and  must 
have  been  written  at  the  same  time  ;  but  some  critics 
date  them  from  Cesarea,  others  from  Rome. 

Tradition  is  unanimous  in  saying  that  they  were 
written  in  Rome.  We  have  evidence  to  this  effect 
in  the  uncial  MSS.  B.**P.K.L.  and  in  the  small 
type  ones  (12,  37,  44,  etc.),  in  the  Syriac  and  Coptic 
versions,  in  St  John  Chrys.,  Theodore tus,  Euthalius, 
etc. ;  we  have  evidence  for  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians 
in  uncials  A.B.'  P.K.  in  small  type  MSS.  (12,  42,  109) 
in  the  Syriac  versions,  in  the  above  Greek  Fathers, 
in  St  Jerome,  and  in  the  Synopsis  attributed  to 
Athanasius ;  we  have  much  the  same  evidence  for 
the  epistle  to  Philemon.  The  immense  majority  of 
Catholic  critics  and  many  Protestants :  Mangold, 
Klopper,  Ewald,  Holtzman,  Oltramare,  Godet,  von 
Soden,  Abbott,  Murray,  Lock,  Harnack  accept  this 
tradition.  On  the  other  hand  some  Catholic  writers 
and  the  majority  of  Protestant  critics  :  Reuss,  Meyer, 
Schenkel,  Weiss,  Hilgenfeld,  Hausrath,  Pfleiderer 
believe  that  they  were  written  from  Cesarea.  The 
arguments  on  both  sides  are  as  follows. 

St  Paul  enjoyed  greater  liberty  at  Rome  than  at 
Cesarea.  In  Cesarea  he  was  confined  in  the  pre- 
torium,  and  was  allowed  to  hold  communications 
only  with  his  friends  (Acts  xxiv.  23).  At  Rome  he 
was  chained  to  a  soldier,  but  lived  in  his  own  lodging, 
and  was  allowed  to  receive  all  that  came  to  see  him. 
He  could  preach  Christ  freely.  He  could  therefore 
there  have  witli  him  the  many  friends  whom  he 
mentions:  Tychicus,  Timothy,  Onesimus,  Aristarchus, 
Mark,  Jesus   Justus,  Epaphras,  Luke,  Demas ;    but 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         203 

we  do  not  see  how  these  can  have  been  with  him  at 
Cesarea. 

Those  who  favour  Cesarea  reply  that  as  he  enjoyed 
so  much  freedom  at  Rome,  he  cannot  have  written 
from  there  to  the  Colossians  (iv.  3)  "  Pray  that  God 
may  open  unto  us  a  door  of  speech  to  speak  the 
mystery  of  Christ  for  which  1  am  bound." 

On  the  other  hand  he  could  not  have  had  with 
him  at  Cesarea  the  runaway  slave  Onesimus,  nor 
Epaphras  as  a  companion  in  slavery  (Col.  i.  7),  nor 
Aristarchus  as  a  fellow-prisoner  (Col.  iv.  x.).  And 
besides  Onesimus  on  running  away  from  CoUossae 
did  not  probably  go  to  Cesarea  where  he  might  easily 
have  been  found,  it  is  more  likely  that  he  went  to 
Rome ;  though  to  this  the  reply  is  that  Cesarea  was 
relatively  nearer  to  CoIossjb,  but  tliat  communications 
with  Rome  were  easier. 

In  the  epistle  to  Philemon,  which  was  written  at 
the  same  time,  he  asks  that  a  lodging  may  be  pre- 
pared for  him  at  Coloss^e.  How  could  he  intend  to 
go  to  Asia  Minor  so  soon  after  bidding  farewell  to 
the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  (Acts  xx.  36)  especially 
as  we  know  that  he  had  planned  to  go  to  Rome  and 
to  Spain  (Rom.  xv.  24)  ?  The  reply  to  this  is  that 
the  Apostle  may  have  changed  his  plans,  and  that  he 
writes  to  the  Philippians  (ii.  24) :  "I  trust  that  I 
shall  come  to  see  you  shortly." 

If  he  had  written  froin  Rome  about  61-62  he  would 
have  said  something  to  the  Colossians  or  Ephesians 
of  the  earthquake  that  caused  so  much  havoc  in 
60-61  in  Laodicea  and  in  the  neighbourhood.  This  is 
an  argument  ea^  silentio  which  proves  nothing,  especi- 
ally as  we  do  not  know  whether  Colossse  suffered  by 
the  earthquake. 

He   writes    (Col.   iv.   10)    that   only   three  judeo- 


204  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

christians  have  laboured  with  him  in  the  kingdom 
of  God.  If  he  wrote  that  letter  from  Rome,  what 
has  become  of  the  many  friends  to  whom  he  sent 
salutations  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  ?  It  is  in- 
deed astonishing  that  only  these  three  circumcised 
Christians  should  be  mentioned.  But  the  mention  of 
them  does  not  exclude  the  others  who  were  perhaps 
converts  from  Paganism,  and  the  Apostle  seems  to 
lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  only  these  three  from  the 
circumcision  were  a  comfort  to  him. 

After  weighing  all  that  can  be  said  on  both  sides, 
we  think  that  these  epistles  were  written  from  Rome ; 
though  we  must  admit  that  it  is  possible  that  they 
were  written  from  Cesarea. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  tell  the  order  in  which 
they  were  written.  We  will  begin  with  the  one  to 
the  Ephesians,  because  its  matter  is  of  more  general 
application,  and  then  we  will  take  the  one  to  the 
Colossians  and  the  one  to  Philemon  which  have  a 
more  special  purpose  ;  and  finally  we  shall  see  that 
probably  the  one  to  the  Philippians  was  written  last. 


2.    TO    WHOM    WAS    THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS 

WRITTEN  ? 

A  preliminary  question  suggests  itself:  Was  it 
written  to  the  Ephesians  only,  or  was  it  a  circular 
letter  addressed  to  several  churches?  Opinions  are 
divided.     Let  us  begin  by  stating  the  facts. 

Chapter  i.  1  says :  "  Paul  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ  by  the  will  of  God  to  all  the  saints  who  are 
[at  Ephesus]  and  to  the  faithful  in  Jesus  Christ." 
Were  the  words  at  Ephesus  in  the  original?  All 
the  Greek  MSS.   except   the    Sinaitic,  the   Vatican 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         205 

and  67  contain  those  words,  and  even  the  Vatican 
and  the  Sinaitic  contain  them  written  by  another 
hand,  and  in  67  they  were  put  in  by  the  copyist 
but  rubbed  out  by  a  corrector.  All  the  ancient 
versions,  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  and  nearly  all  the 
Fathers  read  at  Ephesus.  Nevertheless  the  inter- 
pretation that  St  Basil  says  is  traditional  of  the 
words  Toh  ova-iv  those  who  aix  in  the  true  way,  which 
is  also  the  interpretation  given  by  Origen,  Victorinus 
Afer,  Jerome,  and  Hilary,  is  only  possible  if  at 
Ephesus  is  omitted.  St  Jerome  says  distinctly  that 
some  read  simply  "  ad  eos  qui  sint."  St  Basil  says 
that  according  to  tradition  at  Ephesus  was  not  in  the 
text,  and  that  he  had  found  ancient  MSS.  in  which 
it  was  omitted.  Tertullian  writing  against  Marcion 
in  defence  of  this  epistle  having  been  written  to  the 
Ephesians,  does  not  make  use  of  the  salutation  at 
Ephesus  to  prove  it,  as  he  certainly  would  have  done 
if  he  had  had  it  in  his  copy.  And  we  know  from 
Tertullian  that  Marcion  and  other  heretics  held  that 
the  title  of  this  epistle  was :  to  the  Laodiceans. 
This  may  be  a  conjecture  of  Marcion's.  He  may  have 
had  in  his  possession  an  epistle  without  any  name, 
and  may  have  thought  that  it  must  be  the  one  to  the 
Laodiceans  which  is  mentioned  Col.  iv.  16. 

Can  the  epistle  as  we  have  it  now  have  been  written 
to  the  Ephesians  ?  Let  us  remember  how  St  Paul 
stood  in  relation  to  that  church.  He  had  founded 
it.  He  had  spent  three  whole  years  in  it — allowing 
for  a  probable  absence  of  a  few  months — from  the 
summer  of  54  to  Pentecost  57,  and  during  that  time 
he  had  never  ceased  exhorting  the  Christians  there 
day  and  night  with  tears,  as  he  says  (Acts  xx.  31). 
His  preaching  produced  much  fruit  (Acts  xix.). 
The  Christians  were  devotedly  attached  to  him,  and 


206  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

when  they  heard  him  bidding  them  farewell  (Acts  xx. ) 
"  there  was  much  weeping  among  them  all  and  falling 
upon  the  neck  of  Paul  they  kissed  him,  being  grieved 
most  of  all  for  the  word  which  he  had  said  that  they 
should  see  his  face  no  more."  When  we  remember 
this  affecting  scene,  and  we  think  of  all  the  dangers 
and  persecutions  that  they  had  gone  through  to- 
gether, how  can  we  understand  the  cold,  grave, 
didactic  tone  of  this  epistle  ?  Not  a  single  personal 
reminiscence  occurs  in  it,  no  allusion  to  his  long  stay 
among  them,  and  especially  none  of  the  warmth  of 
affection  that  he  lavished  on  his  spiritual  children. 
He  speaks  more  lovingly  to  the  Colossians  (Col.  i.  8-9) 
whom  he  had  never  seen,  whereas  his  good  wishes  to 
the  Ephesians  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the 
epistle  might  apply  in  general  to  any  Christian  readers. 
Timothy,  who  was  well  known  to  them,  is  associated 
with  the  Apostle  in  the  epistles  to  the  Colossians  and 
to  Philemon,  but  is  here  passed  over  in  silence, 
though  all  these  letters  were  written  at  one  time. 
No  salutations  are  sent  from  those  who  are  with  the 
Apostle  in  this  epistle,  though  there  are  salutations 
sent  in  that  to  the  Colossians. 

Besides  how  could  he  who  had  preached  the  faith 
to  the  Ephesians  write  to  them  (i.  15) :  *'  I  also  hear- 
ing of  your  faith "  ?  And  iii.  2  he  says :  "  If  yet 
you  have  heard  of  the  dispensation  of  the  grace  of 
God  which  is  given  to  me  towards  you."  And  again 
(iv.  21) :  "  If  so  be  that  you  have  heard."  It  is  true 
that  the  if  is  emphatic  and  not  negative,  it  does  not 
mean  that  the  writer  has  any  doubt.  Still  it  is  in- 
comprehensible that  St  Paul  should  write  in  that 
way  to  his  own  disciples,  to  men  who  were  indebted 
to  him  for  all  that  they  knew  of  the  Gospel. 

Some  critics  conclude  from  these  difficulties  that 


OF   THE   NEAV   TESTAMENT         207 

St  Paul  cannot  be  the  author  of  this  epistle.  It  seems 
to  us  on  the  contrary  that  a  forger  would  have  taken 
more  pains  to  make  it  fit  in  with  the  known  events 
of  St  Paul's  life,  he  would  have  put  in  some  references 
to  the  relations  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Ephesians,  and 
especially  would  have  avoided  the  words  quoted 
above  which  tend  to  make  the  pauline  origin  of  the 
epistle  doubtful.  I^et  us  now  state  the  hypotheses 
that  have  been  put  forward  to  explain  these  facts. 

A  certain  number  of  critics :  first  Usher,  and  after 
him  among  Catholics  Hug,  I^amy,  Bisping,  Duchesne, 
Fouard,  S chafer,  Belser,  and  among  Protestants 
Reuss,  Oltramare,  Lightfoot,  Hort,  Weiss,  Haupt, 
Abbott,  Zahn  think  that  this  letter  was  a  circular 
letter.  It  was  addressed  to  the  Christian  churches  of 
Asia.  And  Tichycus,  who  was  also  the  bearer  of 
the  epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  to  Philemon,  was 
intended  to  hand  this  letter  to  the  various  churches 
and  to  give  them  news  of  the  Apostle,  There  may 
have  been  several  copies  sent.  Or  each  church  may 
have  made  a  copy  and  inserted  its  own  name.  This 
circular  letter  is  probably  the  one  that  the  Laodiceans 
were  to  send  to  the  Colossians  (Col.  iv.  16)  which 
was  not  specially  intended  for  them  and  contained 
no  salutations  from  the  Apostle,  since  he  sends 
salutations  to  the  Laodiceans  through  the  Colos- 
sians (Col.  iv.  15).  The  whole  of  tradition  looks 
upon  the  epistle  as  addressed  to  the  Ephesians  be- 
cause probably  the  original  was  kept  in  Ephesus  the 
metropolis  of  Asia.  There  must  have  been  some 
copies  with  another  address,  since  Marcion  had  one 
addressed  to  the  Laodiceans. 

This  hypothesis  that  the  letter  was  a  circular  in- 
tended for  the  ethnico-christian  churches  of  Asia  and 
Phrygia,  most  of  which  had  not  been  evangelised  by 


208  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

St  Paul,  would  explain  its  general  and  impersonal 
tone,  the  pains  that  he  takes  to  present  himself  as 
the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  his  statement 
of  what  he  had  not  by  word  of  mouth  taught  them : 
the  plan  of  God  for  the  redemption  of  the  human 
race. 

Other  critics  especially  Catholics :  Goldhagen, 
Danko,  Cornely  maintain  that  it  was  addressed  only 
to  the  Ephesians,  because  tradition  is  almost  unani- 
mous in  saying  so.  And  the  internal  difficulties  are 
not  impossible  to  meet.  The  passages  i.  15 ;  iii.  2 ; 
iv.  20  do  not  express  doubts,  on  the  contrary  they 
are  assertions  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Ephesians. 
The  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  Galatians,  and 
2  Cor.  contain  no  salutations.  And  personal  allusions 
which  occur  so  frequently  in  some  epistles  may  be 
said  to  be  unsuitable  in  a  purely  dogmatic  epistle 
like  this  one.  Besides  though  St  Paul  sent  this  letter 
to  the  Ephesians,  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  intended 
it  to  be  read  in  other  churches,  and  so  avoided  every- 
thing that  was  personal.  Tychicus  was  intended  to 
make  all  that  good  (vi.  21).  The  supposition  that 
Tychicus  carried  copies  with  spaces  left  blank  for 
the  names  of  the  various  churches,  is  purely  gratuitous 
and  somewhat  ridiculous.  In  any  case,  whether  the 
epistle  was  meant  for  the  Ephesians  only  or  for  other 
churches  as  well,  the  reasons  why  the  Apostle  wrote 
it  are  the  same,  for  all  the  churches  in  proconsular 
Asia  were  in  the  one  identical  condition. 

3.    OBJECT    OF    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS 

All  the  moral  and  dogmatic  teaching  of  this  letter 
is  of  so  general  a  character  that  there  is  some  difficulty 
in  discovering  the  occasion  on  which  it  was  written. 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         209 

St  Paul  may  have  wished  to  bring  to  completion  on 
some  particular  point  the  teaching  that  he  had  given 
to  the  churches  of  Asia.  Yet  some  points  of  contact 
between  this  epistle  and  the  one  to  the  Colossians, 
enable  us  to  make  some  fairly  plausible  conjectures. 

St  Paul  learned  in  prison  from  Epaphras  what  was 
the  condition  of  Colossas  and  of  the  other  churches  in 
Asia.  He  wrote  therefore  to  the  Colossians  to  warn 
them  against  certain  false  doctrines  that  had  sprung 
up  amongst  them,  and  at  the  same  time  wrote  another 
letter  in  more  general  terms,  this  is  the  letter  that 
bears  the  name  of  the  Ephesians.  He  follows  his 
usual  method  in  not  directly  attacking  the  errors  that 
he  aims  at  destroying,  he  explains  the  opposite  truths. 

Christianity  had  made  rapid  progress  in  Asia.  The 
first  converts  were  Jews,  who  were  numerous  in  those 
parts  on  account  of  the  protection  granted  to  them 
first  by  the  Greek  Kings  and  then  by  the  Roman 
Emperors.  Next  came  the  Gentiles  attracted  by  the 
movement  among  the  Jews.  Both  kinds  contributed 
an  element  of  disturbance  :  the  Jews  by  claiming 
to  have  special  privileges  from  God,  the  Gentiles 
by  being  without  the  moral  sense.  Besides,  those 
countries  being  intermediary  between  Greece  and  the 
East,  a  fusion  had  taken  place  in  them  between  Greek 
philosophy  and  Oriental  theosophy,  and  from  this 
fusion  had  arisen  transcendental  speculations  on 
God,  on  the  intermediary  beings  between  God  and 
man,  and  on  the  nature  of  matter.  These  errors  had 
only  just  come  into  being  when  these  epistles  to 
the  Ephesians  and  to  the  Colossians  were  written,  we 
shall  witness  a  development  of  them  when  we  come 
to  the  pastoral  epistles,  and  eventually  they  were 
systematised  in  the  second  century  and  took  the  name 
of  gnosticism. 


210  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

To  meet  these  errors,  the  Apostle  addresses  his 
words  at  one  time  to  Jews,  at  another  time  to  Gentiles. 
The  Jews  despised  the  Gentiles,  saying  that  they  had 
no  part  in  the  Ancient  Covenant.  This  obliged  St 
Paul  to  explain  to  both  parties  the  mystery  that  had 
specially  been  revealed  to  him :  the  Gospel  to  the 
apostleship  of  which  God  had  called  him.  He  had 
to  show  what  place  the  Gentiles  filled  in  the  Church  : 
that  they  were  no  longer  strangers  but  fellow-citizens 
of  the  saints  (Eph.  ii.  19),  that  the  wall  of  separation 
was  broken  down  (ii.  14),  that  there  was  to  be  "one 
body,  one  spirit,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism, 
one  God  and  Father  of  all "  (iv.  4).  The  purpose  of 
the  epistle  is  then  to  manifest  God's  eternal  plan  for 
the  salvation  of  mankind  through  the  redemption  of 
Christ. 


4.    ANALYSIS    OF   THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE    EPHESIANS 

Besides  the  address,  which  is  much  shorter  in  this 
than  in  the  other  epistles,  and  takes  up  no  more  than 
two  verses  at  the  very  beginning,  there  is  a  part  that 
is  dogmatic  and  a  moral  part. 

Dogmatic  part  (i.  3-iii.  21). — This  may  be  divided 
into  four  parts  which  state  in  different  ways  God's 
plan  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  though  the  con- 
nection of  the  ideas  is  not  marked  except  by  blessings 
or  thanksgivings  or  prayers  for  God's  action  on  man- 
kind. 

St  Paul  begins  by  explaining  God's  plan  in  the 
form  of  thanking  Him  for  it :  in  that  way  he  speaks 
of  our  predestination  from  eternity,  of  our  adoption, 
of  our  redemption.  Next  he  prays  for  the  Ephesians 
of  whose  faith  he  has  heard,  his  prayer  is  that  they 


OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT         211 

may  know  what  is  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  the  in- 
heritance of  Christ  in  the  saints.  He  continues  to 
speak  of  how  the  Jews  had  been  children  of  wrath, 
but  had  been  called  to  salvation  (ii.  1-10),  and  then  of 
how  the  Gentiles  were  also  admitted  (ii.  11-22). 

He  claims  to  be  the  apostle  sent  to  the  Gentiles 
that  they  might  be  fellow-heirs  and  copartners  in 
Christ.  He  prays  again  for  the  Ephesians  that  they 
may  be  able  to  understand  with  all  the  saints  what 
is  the  breadth  and  length  and  height  and  depth,  to 
know  also  the  charity  of  Christ  which  surpasseth  all 
knowledge. 

3Ioral  part  (iv.  1-Yi.  20). — He  exhorts  them  to  be 
worthy  of  their  vocation,  he  dwells  on  unity,  men- 
tions the  diverse  offices  in  the  Church  which  are 
intended  to  produce  unity  and  to  prevent  us  from 
being  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine.  Next 
he  exhorts  them  to  avoid  lasciviousness,  lying,  anger, 
etc.  He  compares  the  union  of  man  and  wife  to  the 
union  between  Christ  and  the  Church,  and  exhorts 
husbands  to  love  their  wives  and  wives  to  fear  their 
husbands.  Children  are  to  obey  their  parents,  and 
slaves  their  masters.  He  asks  them  to  pray  for  him 
that  he  may  be  able  to  preach  the  Gospel  with 
confidence. 

Epilogue  (vi.  21-24). — Tychicus  will  tell  them  the 
things  concerning  Paul. 


5.    AUTHENTICITY    OF    THE    EPISTLE 

It  is  only  in  our  own  days  that  the  authenticity  of 
this  epistle  has  been  denied.  In  1824  Usteri  in- 
fluenced by  Schleiermacher  put  forward  doubts. 
Schleiermacher  said  that  neither  the  style  nor  the 


212  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

doctrine  was  pauline.  De  Wette  said  that  it  was 
the  work  of  some  disciple  of  St  Paul's  who  para- 
phrased the  epistle  to  the  Colossians.  This  hypothesis 
has  been  accepted  by  Ewald,  Davidson,  Ritschl, 
Weizsiicker,  and  Renan  with  or  without  modifica- 
tions. Baur  and  the  critics  of  his  school :  Schwegler, 
Kostlin,  Hilgenfeld,  and  Hausrath  found  traces  of 
the  gnostic  and  montanist  heresies  in  this  epistle,  and 
said  that  it  belonged  to  the  second  century.  Pfleiderer 
says  that  it  is  the  work  of  a  judeo-christian  of  pauline 
tendency  who  wishes  to  reconcile  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christians.  Holtzman  says  that  the  epistle  to  the 
Colossians  is  in  the  main  pauline,  and  that  that 
primitive  germ  was  first  developed  into  the  epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  in  order  to  state  cosmological  views, 
and  that  then  from  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was 
formed  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  as  we  have  it 
now.  Klopper  and  von  Loden  deny  the  authenticity 
from  internal  arguments. 

We  cannot  undertake  to  discuss  all  these  objec- 
tions. We  will  confine  ourselves  to  quoting  the 
testimonies  of  ecclesiastical  writers,  and  to  internal 
arguments  in  favour  of  the  authenticity. 

St  Ireneus  is  in  this  case,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
other  epistles,  the  first  writer  to  attribute  it  to  St 
Paul,  but  it  was  known  at  the  end  of  the  first  century. 
Similarities  between  Clement  of  Rome's  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  (xxxvi.  2  =  Eph.  i.  18,  and  xxxviii.  1  =  Eph. 
v.  21)  are  vague  and  may  arise  from  the  use  of  traditional 
expressions,  but  his  reasoning  (xlvi.  6  and  54)  is  very 
like  Eph.  i.  4  and  iv.  6. 

The  precepts  to  masters  and  slaves  in  Didache  (iv. 
10)  and  in  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  (xix.  7)  seem  to  be 
inspired  by  Eph.  vi.  9. 

St  Ignatius  of  Antioch  may  allude  to  this  epistle 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         213 

in  his  letter  to  the  Ephesians  (xii.  2)  when  he  says : 
"  You  are  fellow-initiated  with  Paul  who  in  his  whole 
letter  is  mindful  of  you."  It  would  be  more  gram- 
matical to  translate :  "  who  in  every  letter  is  mindful 
of  you,'"'  but  that  would  be  less  easy  to  understand. 
Some  expressions  in  the  letters  of  St  Ignatius  may 
have  been  inspired  by  this  epistle :  ad  Eph.  the  ad- 
dress =Eph.  V.  1,  ad  Polyc.  v.  l  =  Eph.  v.  29,  ad 
Polyc.  vi.  2  =  Eph.  vi.  11. 

There  are  also  similarities  between  Polycarp's 
epistle  to  the  Philippians  (i.  3  =  Eph.  ii.  8,  ih.  xii.  1  = 
Eph.  iv.  26),  between  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  Mand. 
(iii.  1  =  Eph.  iv.  25,  ib.  x.  2  =  Eph.  iv.  5). 

St  Justin  (Dial,  xxxix.  7)  quotes  from  Ps.  Ixviii. 
19  exactly  as  this  epistle  (iv.  8)  quotes.  St  Ireneus 
attributes  to  St  Paul  passages  from  this  epistle  in- 
troducing them  with  :  "  Qiiemadmodum  Ajjostolus 
Ephesiis  ait.''  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom,  iv.  8  ; 
Paed.  i.  5)  and  Origen  (Princ.  iii.  4)  bear  similar 
testimony. 

The  Naassenians  {Philosoph.  v.  7),  Basilides  {ib.  vii. 
26),  Valentinus  {ib.  vi.  34),  Ptolemy  {Epiphanius  Hcer. 
xxxiii.  6),  and  Theodotus  {Clem.  Alex,  excerpt.  Theod. 
xix.  48)  have  often  quoted  this  epistle  as  Scripture. 

Hort  concludes  from  these  testimonies  that  "  it  is 
almost  certain  that  this  epistle  was  in  existence  about 
the  year  95  and  quite  certain  that  it  was  in  existence 
fifteen  years  later."  The  use  that  is  made  of  it  in 
St  Peter's  first  epistle  proves  the  existence  of  this 
epistle  as  we  shall  see  later  on. 

Form  of  the  epistle.  Vocabulai^y. — It  contains  42 
hapaxlegomena,  that  is  42  words  that  are  not  found 
anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  even  in  St 
Paul's  epistles,  30  that  are  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment but  not  in  the  pauline  epistles,  making  alto- 


214  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

gether  72  words  that  St  Paul  has  not  made  use  of 
elsewhere.  Of  these  hayaxlegomena  11  words  are 
found   in  no  writer  anterior  to  St  Paul :    airoKardX- 

Xacrao),  KaTaoTKT/uLo?,  KocrfxoKpaTCop,  fieOoSiUy  [xecroTOiyov, 
odyOaXjULoSovXia,  Trpoa-KapTeprjrri^,  ir poawiroXriy^ia^  a-vvCMiroLeWy 
a-vvapixoXoyeod,    crvvKXrjpovojuog,     (rvv(Tco/xo9,    three    of     these 

occur  in  Romans  and  Corinthians  which  goes 
to  prove  the  pauline  origin  of  this  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians.  And  Wette  gives  10  words  that  have 
not  in  this  epistle  the  same  meaning  as  in  the 
other  epistles  of  St  Paul.  I^et  us  examine  all  this  in 
detail. 

It  is  a  very  significant  fact  in  favour  of  the 
authenticity  that  22  words  occur  here  that  no  one 
in  the  New  Testament  except  St  Paul  ever  makes 

use   of  I    ayaOcocrvvt],  aXtjOeueiv^  avaKecpaXaiovcrQaif  eirf^oprfyia^ 

etc. ;  and  the  conjunction  apa  ovv  which  is  very 
characteristic  of  St  Paul,  since  we  find  it  twelve 
times  in  him,  and  not  once  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  occurs  here  once.  Other  formulas 
characteristic  of  the  pauline  epistles  are  also  found 
here,  see  Brunet,  auoc  Eph.  p.  21. 

The  hapaxlegomena  prove  nothing  against  the 
authenticity,  because  there  are  some  in  every  pauline 
epistle,  and  relatively  there  are  fewer  here  than  in 
the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  Now  let  us 
examine  the  words  that  St  Paul  has  not  made  use 
of  anywhere  else.  We  must  set  aside  9  words  that 
we  find  only  in  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament, 
for  they  are  in  no  sense  characteristic  of  this  epistle. 
Some  words  :  ayvoia^  airaTaw,  Scopov,  (ppovtjtTi^,  etc.,  belong 
to  ordinary  speech  and  it  is  only  by  chance  that 
he  makes  no  use  of  them.  Other  words :  arwnjpiov, 
eva-TrXayxvog,  uscd  once,  cannot  be  called  characteristic 
of    a   writer ;    6    words   describe   the    armour   of    a 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         215 

Christian  and  are  of  course  special  to  that  description. 
The  many  words  compounded  with  o-w  have  been 
noticed,  the  subject-matter :  unity  of  the  Church, 
union  with  Christ,  union  of  Jew  and  Gentile,  required 
these  words,  so  were  e-^apircoa-eu,  eKXrjpwOrj/xev  required  by 
the  thought.  Finally  other  words :  KaraprtariuLo?,  avoi^i<;, 
oa-ioTt]?  cannot  be  said  to  be  foreign  to  St  Paul,  for 
he   uses    elsewhere  Kardpncri?,   auoiyco^   oa-ioTt]^.       As   for 

Wette's  10  words,  we  need  only  compare  the  follow- 
ing passages  to  see  that  he  is  mistaken : 

evXoyla  Eph.  i.  3  has  the  same  meaning  as  in  Rom  xv.  29. 
alwva  Eph.  ii.  2  „  „  Rom  xii.  2;  Gal  i.  4. 

(puiTiaai  Eph.  iii.  9      „  „  (pwnajuov  2  Cor.  iv.  4. 

fjLva-Ttjpiov  Eph.  V.  32  „  „   1  Cor.  xv.  51 ;  Rom.  xi.  25. 

a<^0a|O(r/a  Eph.  vi.  24   „  „  1  Cor.  XV.  53. 

oiKovofila  Eph.  iii.  2   „  „  1  Cor.  ix.  17. 

The  words   irXripovv  Eph.  iv,  10,  TrXrjpovaOai   Eph.   i.   23, 

-rrXnpw/uLa  Eph  i.  10  would  require  a  special  discussion, 
they  are  merely  an  extension  of  meaning  peculiar  to 
St  Paul.  As  for  Sia^oXog  devil  (Eph.  iv.  27)  we  cannot 
say  why  St  Paul  has  used  it  in  place  of  Satan  which 
occurs  eight  times  in  other  epistles.  The  New 
Testament  writers  indifferently  use  the  one  or  the 
other,  it  is  probable  that  here  and  in  the  pastoral 
epistles  St  Paul  does  so  too.  We  need  not  stop  to 
discuss  any  more  of  these  words,  we  may  refer  the 
reader  to  Oltramare  and  Brunet. 

Style  of  the  epistle. — Those  who  deny  the  authen- 
ticity, say  that  the  style  is  heavy,  embarrassed  and 
diffuse,  that  the  particles  ow,  apa,  apa  oSv^  Sia,  Sion,  yap, 
which  occurs  so  frequently  in  St  Paul,  scarcely  ever 
occur  in  this  epistle,  and  the  writer  makes  too  frequent 
use  of  the  oratio  pendens.     The  sentences  are  of  un- 


216  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

usual  length,  badly  connected  one  with  the  other, 
broken  with  parentheses,  and  the  grammatical  con- 
struction is  often  irregular.  Repetition  of  words  is 
too  frequent,  and  there  are  too  many  genitives,  .  .  . 
Haupt  gives  ninety-three  of  them.    Some  prepositional 

connections  :  ayaOog  irpo?  n  iv.  29,  ayairr]  /xera  Trla-Teco^ 
vi.  23,  c^eV'f  Trepi  vi.  18,  and  some  unions  of  other 
words  SiSovai  Tiva  ri  i.  22,  '((rre  yiyvdocrKovTe^  V.  5,  ^va  with 

the  optative  iii.  6  are  foreign  to  St  Paul. 

Much  the  same  may  be  said  of  other  epistles.  In 
explanations  of  dogma,  St  Paul  is  usually  embarrassed, 
he  usually  drags,  it  is  only  when  he  attacks  or  defends 
that  he  shows  life  and  energy.  The  absence  of  the 
particles  has  been  exaggerated,  ow  occurs  four  times, 
Sio  five  times,  apa  ow  once,  yap  eleven  times,  on  thirteen 
times ;  and  this  is  much  the  same  proportion  as  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Very  long  sentences 
with  the  oratio  pendens  are  found  in  the  unquestionably 
genuine  epistles,  when  as  here  St  Paul  prays  for  his 
readers  (Rom.  i.  1-8 ;  Gal.  i.  1-6)  or  when  he  gives 
thanks  (1  Cor.  i.  4-9 ;  Philip,  i.  3-8)  and  especially 
when  he  gives  dogmatic  explanations  (Rom.  ii. 
13-16;  iv.  16-22;  v.  12-21;  Gal.  ii.  1-11;  Philip,  i. 
26-30). 

But  this  epistle  is  not  diffuse  or  wordy,  it  is  rather 
condensed  and  full  of  ideas,  so  much  so  that  in  places 
there  is  difficulty  in  understanding  it  (i.  1-23).  Com- 
paring his  epistle  with  the  others,  von  Loden  says  that 
the  two  writers  differed  in  character :  one  was  phleg- 
matic and  the  other  choleric.  This  is  a  great  exag- 
geration. St  Paul  was  ardent  and  impetuous  when 
the  occasion  required  it,  he  could  be  calm  when  he 
was  writing  a  circular  letter  that  contained  no  dis- 
cussion, no  attack,  no  defence.  The  special  character- 
istic of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  its  lyrical  tone 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         217 

in  the  first  three  chapters,  it  is  a  series  of  blessings, 
thanksgivings  and  prayers. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  say  that  not  only  are  the 
defects  found  in  this  epistle  characteristics  of  St  Paul's 
style,  but  also  that  all  peculiarly  his  own  ways  of 
using  words  and  all  his  peculiarities  of  style  may  be 
discovered  in  this  epistle. 

Doctrine  of  this  epistle. — The  critics  who  deny  the 
authenticity  of  this  epistle  rely  especially  upon  doc- 
trine. They  say  that  St  Paul's  characteristic  doctrines 
are  not  here,  and  that  those  that  are  here  are  not  to 
be  found  in  any  of  his  other  epistles.  We  must  there- 
fore examine  these  two  statements. 

The  specifically  pauline  doctrines  are  found  in  this  \ 
epistle.  We  take  up  for  this  purpose  the  same  ground 
as  our  adversaries  take,  we  set  aside  the  epistles  to 
the  Colossians,  the  pastoral  epistles,  and  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  St  Paul  in  this  epistle  does  not 
speak  exclusively  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Law  or  of 
justification  by  faith,  the  reason  being  that  he  has 
not  to  attack  the  judaisers  for  whom  the  observance 
of  the  Law  was  a  necessary  condition  for  salvation.  / 
He  is  speaking  to  Pagans  and  he  tells  them  that 
they  are  saved  "  by  means  of  faith  "  (ii.  6),  that  "  it 
comes  not  from  themselves  but  is  a  gift  of  God's  " 
(ii.  8).  This  is  exactly  what  he  teaches  (Rom.  vi.  4  ; 
iii.  20 ;  1  Cor.  i.  29 ;  Philip,  ii.  12). 

The  concept  of  the  flesh  a-ap^  being  the  cause  of 
concupiscence  and  sin,  is  quite  pauline  (Rom.  viii.  3 ; 
Gal.  V.  13)  and  is  found  here  (Eph.  ii.  3). 

The  doctrines  that  may  be  called  the  special  doctrines 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  are  found  at  least  in 
germ  in  the  other  epistles :  for  instance  the  plan  of 
God  for  the  salvation  of  men  (Eph.  i.  4-11=  Rom. 
vii.  28-30  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  7 ;  Gal.  iv.  4) ;  the  reunion  of 


218  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

all  things  in  Christ  (Eph.  i.  10)  is  given  in  its  essence 
(Rom.  viii.  34 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  27 ;  Philip,  ii.  9),  etc.  etc. 
Finally  the  doctrines  of  this  epistle  are  not  in  con- 
tradiction with  St  Paul's  doctrine  as  stated  in  the 
other  epistles.  It  would  be  ridiculous  to  deny  the 
authenticity  of  an  epistle  because  it  contained  some- 
thing that  the  other  epistles  do  not  contain.  An 
original  thinker  and  a  fertile  writer  like  St  Paul  must 
be  allowed  to  push  his  teaching  to  its  normal  develop- 
ment, he  cannot  confine  himself  always  to  the  very 
same  ideas.  Whatever  there  is  new  in  this  epistle 
in  the  way  of  doctrine  follows  logically  from  what 
we  find  in  the  earlier  epistles,  and  is  therefore  to 
be  held  as  genuinely  pauline.  We  will  not  now 
discuss  the  accusations  of  gnosticism  or  montanism 
that  have  been  brought  against  this  epistle,  we 
will  reserve  them  until  we  reach  the  epistle  to  the 
Colossians. 

V  We  have  already  shown  that  the  position  occupied 
by  Christ  in  this  epistle  is  not  different  from  that 
which  is  assigned  to  Him  in  the  other  epistles.  In 
much  the  same  way  it  is  objected  that  the  Church 
is  in  this  epistle  represented  as  an  organic  whole, 
whereas  in  the  other  epistles  St  Paul  knows  of  only 
local  churches ;  it  is  said  that  the  idea  of  the  unity 
and  universality  of  the  Church  is  foreign  to  St  Paul. 
But  that  is  not  true,  he  uses  the  word  Church  in  the 
collective  sense  (1  Cor.  xv.  9  ;  Gal.  i.  13 ;  Philip,  iii. 
6),  or  in  the  abstract  sense  (1  Cor.  xii.  28).     It   is 

^  objected  also  that  the  relation  between  Christ  and 
the  Church  is  not  the  same  in  this  as  in  the  other 
epistles,  here  Christ  is  the  Head  (i.  23  and  iv.  15), 
in  the  others  He  is  the  vital  or  animating  principle 
(1  Cor.  vi.  17  and  xii.  12).  Our  answer  is  that  these 
two  metaphors  are  in  no  sense  contradictory  and  that 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         219 

in  different  ways  they  express  the  same  idea :  we  are 
one  body  in  Christ  (Rom.  xii.  v.  and  1  Cor.  ii.  27). 
This  idea  must  have  been  familiar  to  St  Paul,  since 
it  is  a  fundamental  part  of  Christ's  teaching :  He  is 
the  corner-stone  of  the  building  (Matt.  xxi.  42),  He 
is  the  vine  and  we  the  branches  (John  xv.  5). 

It  is  said  that  St  Paul  does  not  speak  here  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets  as  he  does  elsewhere.  One 
need  only  read  1  Cor.  xii.  28  ;  xv.  9 ;  iv.  9  to  see  that 
there  is  nothing  in  this  objection.  As  for  the  epithet 
holy  which  is  given  to  them  (iii.  5)  we  find  it  also  in 
1  Cor.  xvi.  1 ;  2  Cor.  viii.  4 ;  and  ix.  1. 

The  universalism  of  this  epistle  is  said  not  to  be 
the  same  as  that  of  the  other  epistles :  here  the 
Gentiles  are  incorporated  with  the  Jews,  in  the 
others  there  are  no  longer  either  Jews  or  Gentiles 
but  a  new  humanity  in  Jesus  Christ.  But  we  read 
in  Eph.  ii.  14-16  of  the  two  forming  "one  new  man" 
and  "  one  body,"  so  that  the  same  idea  is  here,  only 
it  is  expressed  in  different  terms. 

Angelology  is  said  to  be  more  developed  here  than 
elsewhere.  The  fact  is  that  there  is  a  catalogue  of 
the  angels  in  Rom.  viii.  38  and  in  1  Cor.  xv.  24 
and  Eph.  i.  21,  a  comparison  of  the  three  shows  that 
here  as  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  he  adds 
Donmiion.  Finally  St  Paul  exalts  Christ  above  all 
the  heavenly  powers  (i.  20),  but  he  does  so  also  in 
Philip,  ii.   10. 

Comparison  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  to 
the  Colossians 

There  are  many  similarities  of  ideas  and  of  expres- 
sions between  these  two  epistles.  The  following  list 
is  given  by  de  Wette : 


7 


220 


HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 


Eph. 


i.  7    Col.  i.  14 

Eph 

i.  iv.  22 

Col.  iii.  8 

i.  10 

,  i.  20 

iv.  25 

iii.  8 

i.  15-17  , 

,  i.  3-4 

iv.  29 

„iii.8;iv.6 

i.  18 

,  i.  27 

iv.  31 

iii.  8 

i.  21 

,  i.  16 

iv.  32 

iii.  12 

i.  22 

,  i.  18 

V.  3 

iii.  5 

ii.  1-12   , 

,  i.  21 

V.  4 

iii.  8 

ii.  5 

,  ii.  13 

V.  5 

iii.  5 

ii.  15 

,  ii.  14 

V.  6 

iii.  6 

ii.  16 

,  ii.  20 

V.  15 

iv.  5 

iii.  1 

,  i.  24 

V.  19 

iii.  16 

iii.  2 

,  i.  25 

V.  21 

iii.  18 

iii.  3 

,  i.  26 

V.  25 

iii.  19 

iii.  7    , 

,  i.  23-25 

vi.  1 

iii.  20 

iii.  8 

,  i.  27 

vi.  4 

iii.  21 

iv.  1 

,  i.  10 

vi.  5 

iii.  22 

iv.  2 

,  iii.  12 

vi.  9 

iv.  1 

iv.  3 

,  iii.  14 

vi.  18 

iv.  2 

iv.  15 

,  ii.  19 

vi.  21 

iv.  7 

iv.  19 

,  iii.  1-5 

Various  explanations  of  this  are  offered.  The  two 
are  supposed  to  be  dependent  one  upon  the  other, 
but  the  question  is  which  of  the  two  is  the  first,  some 
say  the  one,  some  say  the  other.  Holtzman  proves 
that  in  certain  passages  (Eph.  i.  4-vi.  7,  and  iii.  3-5- 
9-17-18,  etc.)  priority  is  on  the  side  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  and  he  concludes  that  there  was  an 
epistle  of  St  Paul  to  the  Colossians  which  was  used 
as  a  basis  by  the  writer  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  that  then  the  same  author  made  use  of  his  work 
to  complete  the  original  letter  to  the  Colossians.  All 
this  seems  very  complicated  and  very  subjective. 

In  reality  these  resemblances  may  be  explained  by 
the  circumstances  in  which  the  two  epistles  were 
written.     Both  were  composed  at  the  same  period. 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         221 

Perhaps  at  only  a  few  days'  interval.  Both  were 
intended  to  meet  the  same  errors,  and  to  give  the 
same  moral  counsels  in  identical  situations.  What 
is  more  natural  than  that  both  the  thoughts  and  the 
expressions  should  resemble  each  other  in  the  two 
letters  ? 

Yet  the  one  is  not  a  servile  copy  of  the  other. 
The  dialectics  are  not  the  same.  The  epistle  to  the 
Colossians  being  addressed  to  a  particular  church  is 
more  polemical,  it  attacks  error  more  directly,  the 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians  being  probably  a  circular 
letter  speaks  more  generally.  The  object  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  to  prove  the  super- 
eminent  dignity  of  Christ  over  all  created  beings, 
the  object  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  to 
show  God's  plan  for  uniting  all  creatures  in 
Christ. 

It  deserves  our  notice  also  that  the  parallel  passages 
do  not  occur  in  the  same  train  of  thought,  there  are 
whole  sections  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (i.  3-14, 
i.  15-ii.  10)  which  have  no  parallel  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Colossians  except  short  passages  which  are  not 
introduced  in  the  same  connection.  When  the  ideas 
are  parallel  (Eph.  iii.  1-2  =  Col.  i.  24-29)  the  wording 
is  different.  A  forger  would  have  to  he  very  clever 
to  make  so  many  differences  in  so  many  resemblances. 
And  why  did  he  borrow  only  from  Colossians  and 
not  from  the  other  epistles  ? 

We  admit  that  the  moral  part  (Eph.  iv.  17-vi.  20 
and  Col.  iii.  1-iv.  7)  is  similar  in  both  epistles  as 
regards  the  thoughts,  and  that  the  expressions  are 
often  identical.  It  would  have  been  surprising  if  the 
contrary  had  been  the  case,  since  St  Paul  wrote  to 
persons  whose  origin  and  whose  circumstances  were 
identical. 


222  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

Comparison  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  with  other 
parts  of  New  Testament 

The  following  list  shows  the  most  striking  of  the 
similarities  with  the  first  epistle  of  St  Peter : 
Eph.  i.  3  =1  Peter  i.  3. 

„     ii.  18        =         „      ii.  4-5-6. 
„     i.  20,  etc.  =         „      iii.  22. 
„     iii.  5-10   =         „      i.  10-11-12. 
These  are  similar  coincidences  with  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews : 

Eph.  i.  20         =  Heb.  i.  3. 
„      viii.  1       =     „      X.  12. 
„      i.  7  =     „      ix.  12. 

and  with  the  Apocalypse  : 

Eph.  iii.  5         =  Apoc.  x.  7. 
„     V.  11        =      „      xviii.  4. 
and  with  the  Gospel  of  St  John  : 

Eph.  V.  8  =  John  xii.  35  and  iii.  20-21. 
All  these  coincidences  may  be  fortuitous,  or  they 
may  come  from  the  fact  that  the  writers  drew  upon 
a  more  or  less  stereotyped  tradition.  Besides  why 
should  not  later  writers  have  made  use  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  ? 

This  last  conclusion  seems  to  be  forced  upon  us 
when  we  consider  that  in  certain  passages  of  con- 
siderable length  words  and  thoughts  are  practically 
identical  (Eph.  i.  5-15  =  Pet.  i.  5-13).  It  seems 
probable  to  us  that  St  Peter  knew  the  epistles  of 
St  Paul,  he  insinuates  it  fairly  clearly  in  his  second 
epistle  (iii.  15),  if  that  is  we  admit  that  that  epistle 
is  directly  St  Peter's  epistle.  Moreover  there  are 
between  the  epistles  of  St  Peter  and  St  Paul  so  many 
similarities  of  thought,  and  expressions  are  so  often 
identical,  that  there  seems  clearly  to  be  some  literary 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         223 

dependence.  We  find  in  St  Peter  eight  words :  da-TriXo?, 
eiS(i)\o\aTpLa,  /faraXaX/a,  KoXacpi^co,  Kvpiortj^,  TrpocprjriKo^y  cruy- 
KXrjpovo/iiog,  -xfipia-iuLa,  which  occur  for  the  first  time  in 
the  pauline  epistles  and  do  not  belong  to  the  Greek 
literature  of  the  first  century  a.d.  We  can  under- 
stand this  when  we  remember  that  Silvanus  the 
friend  and  faithful  companion  of  St  Paul  was  the 
secretary  who  wrote  St  Peter's  first  epistle  (v.  12), 
he  may  even  have  composed  it  under  the  inspiration 
of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles.  Silvanus  probably 
had  in  his  mind,  while  he  was  writing,  the  favourite 
expressions  of  his  old  master. 

6.    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS 

Coloss£e  was  a  town  in  Phrygia,  in  the  valley 
of  the  Lycus,  on  the  road  from  Ephesus  to  the 
Euphrates,  about  20  kilometres  from  Laodicea  and 
200  from  Ephesus.  Ancient  authors  speak  of  it  as 
a  large,  populous  and  very  famous  city,  but  now 
there  is  only  a  trace  of  it  left  near  a  village  called 
Khone.  The  church  at  Colossas  was  not  founded 
by  St  Paul.  He  seems  never  to  have  seen  the 
Colossians,  for  he  says  that  he  has  heard  of  their 
faith  (i.  4),  and  he  classes  them  with  those  who 
"have  not  seen  my  face  in  the  flesh"  (ii.  1),  though 
the  text  might  be  interpreted  another  way ;  it  might 
mean  that  the  Laodiceans  only  had  not  seen  his  face 
and  that  the  Colossians  had  seen  him. 

The  majority  of  the  faithful  in  this  chnrch  were 
Gentiles  (i.  27  and  ii.  13),  but  there  must  have  been 
some  Jews,  because  they  formed  a  large  part  of  the 
population  in  the  valley  of  the  Lycus,  and  especially 
because  the  errors  attacked  here  in  ii.  14-16  are  partly 
of  Jewish  origin. 


224  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

It  was  Epaphras,  a  native  of  Colossae  and  a  beloved 
colleague  of  St  Paul's,  that  evangelised  them,  or 
perhaps  he  only  taught  them  St  Paul's  doctrine  on 
grace  and  justification.  He  went  to  Rome  for  some 
reason  that  we  know  nothing  of,  perhaps  it  was  in 
order  to  give  information  to  St  Paul  concerning 
Colossae  and  the  neighbouring  towns  of  Laodicea, 
Hierapolis  and  Ephesus,  at  all  events  he  gave  a  good 
account  of  the  faith  and  charity  of  the  Colossians 
(i.  4),  but  he  also  mentioned  the  moral  and  dogmatic 
tendencies  and  even  errors  that  were  beginning  to 
show  themselves.  What  these  errors  were  we  cannot 
say  precisely,  but  in  general  they  seemed  to  have 
looked  upon  Almighty  God  as  transcendent  above 
this  world,  as  holding  communications  with  it  by 
means  of  a  series  of  mediators  :  majesties,  dominions, 
principalities,  powers,  images  of  the  invisible  God 
(i.  15),  agents  of  creation  (i.  16),  possessing  all  the 
perfection  of  God  (i.  19),  deserving  to  be  worshipped 
(ii.  18) ;  and  Christ  was  to  them  the  first  of  these 
creatures.  They  drew  the  practical  conclusions  that 
one  ought  to  detach  oneself  from  matter  by  ascetic 
practices,  by  abstinence  from  meat  and  wine  (ii.  16), 
by  mortification  of  the  body  (ii.  23),  by  circumcision 
(ii.  11),  and  by  keeping  feasts  and  new  moons  and 
sabbaths  (ii.  16). 

To  what  sect  in  antiquity  did  this  Colossian  heresy 
belong?  According  to  TertuUian  and  Euthalius 
the  Colossian  heretics  were  philosophers,  epicureans 
according  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  pythagoreans 
according  to  Grotius,  Chaldean  philosophers  accord- 
ing to  Hug,  Christians,  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist 
according  to  Kopp,  disciples  of  Apollos  according  to 
Mich^elis,  Essenian  Christians  according  to  Klopper 
and  Mangold,  judeo- Christians  or  Essenians  according 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         225 

to  Thiersch,  Credner,  Ewald,  Ritschl,  Salmon  and 
especially  Lightfoot,  cabbalists  according  to  Osiander, 
Alexandrians  according  to  Schenkel,  gnostic  cerinthians 
according  to  MayerhofFand  Neander,  ebionite  gnostics 
according  to  Baur,  Lipsius,  Sabatier,  Davidson,  Blom, 
Pfleiderer  and  Schmeidel,  and  according  to  Reuss 
the  false  teachers  at  Colossse  were  some  of  them 
Essenians  and  some  Alexandrians.  Oltramare  gives 
the  following  description  of  this  heresy :  "  The 
doctors  of  Colossse  professed  transcendental  theo- 
sophic  doctrines  which  they  discovered  by  means 
of  philosophy  (piXoa-ocpla  (ii.  8),  they  borrowed  the 
principles  of  sanctification  from  the  rudiments  of  this 
world  (ii.  8),  they  pretended  by  their  philosophical 
speculations  and  by  their  asceticism  to  lead  Christians 
to  God  and  to  perfection.  They  boasted  (pva-iov/mevo^ 
(ii.  18)  of  a  superior  theological  science  outside  of 
Christ  ov  Kara  yjpicrTov  (ii.  8).  Not  attaching  them- 
selves firmly  to  Him  who  is  the  Head  of  the  Church 
they  lead  souls  astray  by  their  pretended  science 
yvwa-is  and  make  them  wander  away  from  the  path 
of  true  sanctity  by  their  ascetic  principles.  They 
bring  trouble  and  division  into  the  Church  (iii.  14). 

This  account  of  opinions  both  ancient  and  modern 
shows  how  little  is  really  known  with  regard  to  these 
errors.  It  seems  to  us  that  we  have  here  a  syncretic 
heresy  made  up  of  a  mixture  of  oriental  speculations 
and  of  Jewish  and  Christian  doctrines. 

In  opposition  to  these  St  Paul  teaches  that  the 
Son  Jesus  Christ  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God, 
and  the  agent  and  Head  of  Creation  (i.  15),  the  Head 
of  the  Church  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  the  only 
mediator  between  God  and  creatures  (i.  19),  He  has 
made  the  antiquated  practices  useless,  such  as  new 
moons,  sabbaths  and  abstinences. 


226  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 


7.    ANALYSIS    OF   THE    EPISTLE 

There  is  the  prologue  (i.  1-13),  the  dogmatic  part 
(i.  14-ii.  23),  the  moral  part  (iii.  1-iv.  6),  and  the 
epilogue  (iv.  7-18). 

Prologue. — Paul  the  Apostle  and  Timothy  to  the 
saints  at  Colossae.  He  thanks  God  for  their  faith 
and  charity.  He  prays  without  ceasing  that  they 
may  have  full  knowledge  and  wisdom.  Let  them 
be  thankful  for  their  part  in  the  inheritance. 

Dogmatic  part. — The  Son  is  the  first-born,  all  things 
were  made  in,  by  and  for  Him.  They  were  once 
enemies,  now  they  are  reconciled  by  the  death  of 
Christ.  St  Paul  rejoices  to  suffer  for  the  Gospel  of 
which  he  is  the  minister  to  preach  the  mystery 
of  reconciliation  to  the  Gentiles.  He  wants  them 
to  know  the  battle  that  he  is  fighting  for  them  and 
for  the  Laodiceans  and  for  others  to  whom  he  is  not 
personally  known. 

He  wishes  them  not  to  be  seduced  by  false  philo- 
sophy which  is  founded  upon  the  elements  and  not 
upon  Christ,  in  whom  the  plenitude  of  the  Divinity 
dwells  bodily,  who  triumphed  over  the  powers  of  evil 
by  the  Cross. 

He  declares  that  no  one  has  the  right  to  judge 
them  for  eating  or  drinking  or  legal  feasts,  he  says 
that  all  these  things  are  the  shadow  and  that  Christ 
is  the  reality.  He  condemns  the  worship  of  angels 
and  the  senseless  visions  of  carnal  men. 

Moral  part. — If  they  are  risen  with  Christ,  let 
them  seek  the  things  that  are  above,  for  they  are 
dead,  and  their  life  is  hidden  with  Christ  in  God. 
Let  them  avoid  uncleanness,  evil  words,  lies ;  let 
them  put  on  goodness,  humility,  and  above  all  charity 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         227 

which  is  the  bond  of  perfection.  Then  he  speaks 
separately  to  husbands,  wives,  children,  slaves  and 
masters.  He  concludes  with  counselling  generally 
prayer,  and  begs  prayers  for  himself  that  he  may  be 
free  to  preach  the  Gospel.  Let  them  be  prudent  with 
those  who  are  outside,  let  them  seize  the  occasion, 
let  their  words  be  seasoned  with  salt  and  appropriate 
to  each  person. 

Epilogue. — He  is  sending  Tychicus  and  Onesimus 
to  them.  He  ordains  that  this  epistle  is  to  be  read 
in  Laodicea  and  the  Laodicean  in  Colossae.  He  sends 
salutations,  a  special  message  to  Archippus,  and  signs 
his  name  with  his  own  hand. 


8.    AUTHENTICITY    OF   THE    EPISTLE 

The  pauline  origin  of  this  epistle  was  never  ques- 
tioned before  the  present  century.  Mayerhof  says 
that  that  this  epistle  is  an  epitome  of  the  one  to  the 
Ephesians,  and  that  it  was  directed  against  the  heresy 
of  Cerinthus.  Christian  Baur  says  that  it  was  written 
against  ebionite  judeo-christianity  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  he  finds  traces  of  that  heresy  in  circumci- 
sion, in  the  feast  days,  in  abstinence  from  meat  and 
wine,  in  the  worship  of  angels ;  the  christology  is 
gnostic,  and  the  terms  irXripwixa  and  71/tocrts  are  gnostic. 

We  have  seen  that  Holtzman  admits  that  there  is 
a  pauline  kernel  in  this  epistle,  he  keeps  41  verses 
and  rejects  53  including  the  beautiful  passage 
(i.  15-20)  on  the  supereminent  dignity  of  Christ. 
He  distinguishes  two  polemics  in  it :  one  against  the 
judeo-christians,  and  one  against  the  theosophic  views 
of  the  gnostics.  Jiilicher  considers  all  this  too  com- 
plicated.    Von    Loden   limits   the   interpolations   to 


228  HISTORY   OF    THE    BOOKS 

i.  15-20  and  ii.  10-15-186,  but  in  his  commentary 
he  rejects  only  i.  16,  17b.  Hilgenfeld,  Pfleiderer  and 
Weizsacker  rejects  the  whole  epistle  and  say  that  it 
belongs  to  the  second  century. 

All  these  theories  are  based  on  internal  evidence. 
They  take  no  notice  of  tradition. 

St  Ireneus  {adv.  Her.  iii.  14)  attributes  the  epistle 
to  the  Colossians  to  St  Paul,  and  he  is  the  first  writer 
to  bear  this  testimony  ;  but  in  earlier  writers  we  find 
passages  that  remind  one  of  this  epistle.  Cf.  Clement 
of  Rome  (1  Cor.  xxiv.  1  and  Col.  i.  18 ;  ib.  49,  2  and 
Col.  iii.  14),  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  (xii.  7),  Ignatius 
of  Antioch  (Eph.  x.  2;  Col.  i.  23;  Smyrn.  vi.  1), 
Polycarp  (Phihp.  xi.  2  ;  Col.  iii.  5),  Justin  (Dial.  84,  6  ; 
25,  6  ;  125,  7  ;  138,  5  ;  100,  6). 

This  epistle  is  attributed  to  St  Paul  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria  in  Strom,  i.  1,  by  TertuUian  {de  prceser, 
8),  by  Origen  (Contr.  Cels.  v.  8).  The  heretics  of  the 
second  century  knew  it  as  being  pauline.  Marcion 
had  it  in  his  Apostolicon.  St  Ireneus  quotes  passages 
from  Valentinus  containing  quotations  from  the 
epistle  to  the  Colossians.  The  author  of  the  Philo- 
sophumena  says  that  the  Peratae  and  Docetse  made 
a  bad  use  of  texts  from  this  epistle  (ii.  14-15  and  ii.  9). 
Muratori's  canon  has  it,  and  so  have  all  the  canons 
versions  and  MSS. 

Language. — The  language  of  this  epistle  both  in 
the  words  and  in  the  style  is  markedly  different  from 
the  other  epistles  of  St  Paul  except  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  which  is  similar  to  this  one,  but  we  do  not 
think  that  these  differences  prove  anything  against 
the  authenticity,  because  in  spite  of  the  difference  of 
style  we  recognise  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  to  be 
distinctly  pauline. 

Vocabulary. — The  hapaxlegomena  number  33,  and 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         229 

there  are  besides  48  words  that  are  found  in  other 
parts  of  the  New  Testament,  but  not  in  other  epistles 
of  St   Paul,  so   that   the  whole  number  of  hapax- 
legomena  in  relation  to  pauline  writings  comes  to  81. 
There  are  also  35  new  formulae :  af^aa  rod  crravpovy 

aTToOvijcTKeiv  airo,  av^rjai<i  tov  Oeov,  oo^a  tou  jUiU(rTi]piov,  eXTrJ? 
T^?  So^r}^,  Oprjo-Keia  Twv  ayyeXcov,  etc. ;   15  compouud  WOrds, 

which  in  proportion  goes  beyond  the  other  epistles ; 

2  prefixes  where  St  Paul  puts  1 :  cnroKaTaWdaa-eiv, 
aireKSvea-Oai ;  an  accumulation  of  synonyms :  -Trpocrev^o- 

fievoi   Kai   aiTOv/uevoi,   crochia   Kai   (rvvecn^^  opyr]  kui   Oujulo?  ',   the 

use  of  2  genitives :  "by  the  word  of  the  truth  of 
the  Gospel,"  "  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  His  love  " ; 
frequent  use  of  the  adjective  ttu?;   repetitions  of  a 

word  yucopilCeiv,  evepyeia,  vvvy  vwi^  TrXtjpovv  instead  of  TrXeoi'. 

The  words  that  occur  here  for  the  first  time  are  7  in 

number :  aireK^voixai^  direKSvaKf  edeKoOpriaKeia,  avKaXoyeMy 
aTTOKaToXacra-eiv,    tcvpiorr]?,    crvu^ocoTroieo),    though    the     last 

3  occur  also  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 
Besides  we  do  not  find  here  St  Paul's  most  familiar 

words :  justice,  justification,  salvation,  believe,  law, 
boast,  persuade,  communion,  etc.,  nor  his  usual  con- 
junctions :  €1  yur/,  ovSe,  ouT€,  el  rtf,  el  Kai,  e'l  tto)^,  e'lirep,  ov 
fjLOVov  Se,  oio,  oioTi,  (ipa,  omen. 

All  these  objections  may  be  made  also  against 
some  of  the  admittedly  genuine  epistles.  The  pro- 
portion of  hapaxlegomena  is  not  much  greater  here 
than  elsewhere,  and  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact 
that  he  speaks  here  of  doctrines  of  which  he  does  not 
speak  anywhere  else,  half  of  these  words  are  in  the 
second  chapter  which  deals  with  quite  a  special  sub- 
ject-matter. The  vocabulary  was  bound  to  change 
with  the  subject-matter,  and  that  is  why  we  do  not  find 
here  the  words  that  are  so  familiar  in  the  epistles  that 
deal  with  justification  by  faith  and  not  by  works.    The 


230  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

repetitions  of  words  were  required  by  the  matter,  and 
it  is  well  known  from  the  other  epistles  that  St  Paul 
never  took  pains  to  give  variety  to  his  expressions. 
The  words  that  according  to  the  objection  above 
should  occur  here,  are  omitted  in  the  longest  epistles  : 
justice  occurs  once  in  1  Cor.  andjW^  not  even  once, 
salvation  does  not  occur  there  or  in  Gal.,  obedience 
does  not  occur  in  1  Cor.  or  Gal.,  Philip.,  1  Thess., 
laxv  occurs  neither  in  2  Cor.  nor  in  1  or  2  Thess. 
Conjunctions  are  rare  here  because  there  is  no  dis- 
cussion in  this  epistle,  it  is  devoted  rather  to  explana- 
tion. On  the  use  of  a-uv  compare  Rom.  vi.  4  and  vi. 
6-8  and  viii.  17;  Gal.  ii.  20  with  Col.  ii.  12-13-20 
and  iii.  1.  The  frequent  use  of  Tra?  is  evidently  un- 
avoidable in  treating  of  the  union  of  the  faithful  with 
Christ,  and  besides  we  find  it  in  other  epistles  also : 
in  1  Cor.  it  occurs  47  times,  15  times  in  chapter  x., 
14  times  in  chapter  xiii.,  and  18  times  in  chapter  xv. 

Half  of  the  compound  words  occur  in  the  other 
epistles  also,  and  St  Paul  liked  compound  words,  this 
is  especially  noticeable  in  his  later  epistles.  Double 
prefixes  are  as  numerous  in  2  Cor.  v.  2-4  as  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Colossians.  The  synonyms  to  which 
objection  is  taken  are  not  really  synonyms,  and  a 
similar  phenomenon  may  be  seen  in  Philip,  i.  7-9-10,  etc. 

We  should  also  notice  the  many  similarities  be- 
tween this  epistle  to  the  Colossians  and  the  one  to 

the   Philippians  :   in  words   irXrjpovv,  cnrXayyya,  oiKTipjULoSy 

Tct  Kar  ejue,  ajuiwjULOi,  etc.,  in  Style,  as  when  a  statement 
begins  with  a  relative  (Col.  ii.  23  ;  Phil  i.  28  ;  Col.  i.  9  ; 
Phil.  i.  11  ;  Col.  iii.  15;  Phil.  iv.  7),  or  as  when  the 
thought  is  similar  (Col.  i.  24  ;  Phil.  iii.  10  ;  Col.  xi.  18  ; 
Phil.  iii.  8  ;  Col.  i.  24  ;  Phil.  ii.  30),  etc.  And  nearly  all 
critics  admit  now  that  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians  is 
genuinely  pauline. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         231 

Five  words  that  St  Paul  was  the  first  to  use  are 
found  here  as  well  as  in  his  other  epistles :  dvaKaivoo), 

€iS(t)Xo\aTpia,     TrXi]po(popia,     crvvaiK/maXcoTO^,     (pva-ioco ;       and 

seven  words  that  are  peculiar  to  the  epistles  of  St 
Paul  since  they  are  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament  are  found  in  this  epistle :  axetj/at,  eSpalog,  eiK% 

6pia/nl3ev€ip,  Icrorr]?,  TraOo?,  avvOaTTTOfxai. 

Style  of  the  epistle. — In  the  first  two  chapters  the 
style  is  heavy  and  embarrassed,  the  sentences  are  long, 
the  construction  drags  (i.  9-20  and  ii.  8-12).  A 
peculiar  look  is  given  to  the  sentences  by  the  frequent 
use  of  the  relative  pronoun  (i.  13-22  and  ii.  10-13).  It 
is  beyond  doubt  that  in  the  epistles  to  the  Galatians 
and  Corinthians  the  style  is  more  full  of  life  and  passion, 
the  sentences  are  long  but  do  not  drag.  That  is  so, 
because  there  the  apostle  attacks  live  adversaries, 
whereas  in  this  epistle  to  the  Colossians  he  makes  no 
direct  attack,  and  besides  he  had  never  seen  these 
adversaries  ;  he  writes  calmly  therefore,  and  here  as 
always  in  his  dogmatic  explanations  his  sentences  are 
long  and  badly  constructed,  the  parts  are  connected 
by  relatives  and  participles  of  which  the  use  that  he 
makes  is  not  always  regular. 

These  remarks  are  correct,  but  they  prove  nothing 
against  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle,  for  we  find 
these  immensely  long  and  clumsily  constructed  sen- 
tences in  the  dogmatic  parts  of  other  epistles  :  Rom  i. 
1-8,  ii.  5-10,  iii.  23-26,  iv.  16-22  ;  2  Cor.  i.  4-8 ;  1  Cor. 
i.  3-7  ;  Gal.  ii.  3-5  ;  Eph.  i.  3-7  ;  Philip,  iii.  8-11.  The 
style  changes  as  soon  as  he  comes  to  practical 
questions,  then  his  sentences  are  short  and  his  con- 
struction is  direct ;  the  same  change  may  be  noticed 
in  the  other  epistles.  Lastly  in  this  epistle  (ii.  4-7-18- 
23  and  iii.  14  and  iv.  6-17)  we  have  expressions  and 
constructions  that  are  genuinely  pauline. 


232  HISTORY   OF  THE    BOOKS 

Doctrine  of  the  epistle. — It  is  brought  as  an 
objection  against  the  authenticity  of  this  epistle  that 
it  contains  doctrines  that  are  foreign  to  St  Paul,  or 
are  developments  from  his  doctrine,  and  that  they 
were  unknown  until  the  second  century.  The  pre- 
existence  (i.  17),  the  divinity  (i.  15),  thesupereminence 
of  Christ  (i.  15),  the  hierarchy  of  the  angels  (i.  6),  the 
reconciliation  of  all  beings  by  the  Blood  of  the  Cross 
(i.  20)  are  treated  as  of  greater  importance  than  justi- 
fication by  faith. 

All  that  is  quite  true,  but  we  do  not  admit  that  it 
tells  against  the  authenticity.  These  critics  seem  to 
think  that  St  Paul  should  always  have  repeated 
exactly  the  same  doctrines  without  ever  touching 
upon  any  new  subject.  As  a  matter  of  fact  his  funda- 
mental ideas  do  appear  in  this  epistle  whenever  an 
opportunity  occurs,  and  the  germ  of  what  is  here 
developed  is  found  in  the  earlier  epistles.  The  pre- 
existence  of  Christ  is  found  (2  Cor.  viii.  9) :  "  Being 
rich  he  became  poor  for  your  sakes,"  and  (Philip,  ii.  6) : 
"  Being  in  the  form  of  God  .  .  .  emptied  Himself." 
The  supereminence  of  Christ  is  seen  very  clearly  in 
Philip,  ii.  6-11:  "God  gave  Him  a  name  above  all 
names."  And  as  for  the  dignity  of  Son  of  God 
attributed  to  Christ,  we  find  it  on  every  page  of 
the  pauline  epistles :  Rom.  i.  3-6,  v.  10 ;  1  Cor.  i.  9 ; 
2  Cor.  i.  19,  fifteen  times  altogether.  Creation  is 
attributed  to  Him  (1  Cor.  viii.  6). 

He  dwells  on  the  supremacy  of  Christ  in  this 
epistle  to  the  Colossians  because  he  has  to  defend  it 
against  a  rival  doctrine  concerning  other  mediators 
between  God  and  men.  The  hierarchy  of  the  angels 
is  found  in  Rom.  viii.  30  and  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  the  terms 
are  not  always  the  same,  nor  are  the  numbers  equal, 
but  that  proves  only  that  he  had  not  adopted  definitely 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         233 

any  system  of  doctrine  on  the  point.  As  for  the 
reconciliation  by  the  blood  of  the  Cross,  he  does  not 
speak  of  it  anywhere  else  in  so  many  words,  but  he 
insinuates  it  in  2  Cor.  v.  19 :  "  God  was  indeed  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself"  Many 
doctrines  are  found  only  once  in  the  epistles  of  St 
Paul,  yet  no  one  thinks  those  epistles  unauthentic 
for  that  reason. 

In  answer  to  the  objection  that  the  errors  re- 
futed in  this  epistle  were  not  known  until  the 
second  century,  we  say  that  it  would  be  well  if 
we  could  know  exactly  what  the  errors  were  that 
had  found  a  footing  at  Colossas,  but  that  is 
exactly  what  we  do  not  know.  There  is  some 
analogy  with  the  errors  of  the  second  century,  but 
there  is  no  identity  with  any  one  of  them,  with 
cerinthianism,  or  valentinianism,  or  ebionite  gnosti- 
cism. There  was  a  latent  gnosticism,  that  may  have 
manifested  itself  at  Colossse,  as  it  manifested  itself 
in  the  Judaism  of  the  first  century  (Friedlander,  Der  \/ 
vorchrist.  jiid.  Gnosticism),  and  in  the  ascetic  and 
abstinent  judeo-christianity  against  which  St  Paul 
writes  to  the  Romans  (xiv.  2-6) ;  we  see  the  same  thing 
also  in  Gal.  ii.  8  and  ii.  16.  The  words  yvwo-t?  and 
nrXr'ipwiJia  that  are  supposed  to  have  been  borrowed 
from  gnosticism,  are  used  here  in  the  same  meaning 
as  in  the  other  epistles,  and  not  in  their  special  or 
technical  gnostic  meaning.  Lastly  we  do  not  find 
here  the  other  technical  gnostic  terms  that  were  in 
use  in  the  second  century:  eons,  syzygies,  ogdoads, 
etc. 

Therefore  our  conclusion  is  that  the  testimony 
of  the  whole  of  Christian  tradition  must  prevail 
and  that  this  epistle  must  be  accepted  as 
authentic. 


234  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 


9.  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON 

This  is  quite  a  personal  letter.  It  was  written  to 
Philemon  to  obtain  forgiveness  for  Onesimus  who 
was  a  native  of  Colossse  and  a  slave  as  his  name 
indicates.  He  had  run  away  from  Philemon  his 
master  after  committing  some  fault,  perhaps  some 
theft.  He  went  to  Paul  in  Rome  or  Cesarea,  having 
perhaps  known  him  elsewhere.  The  Apostle  converted 
him,  and  loved  him  as  a  son  born  to  him  in  captivity, 
he  would  have  liked  to  keep  him,  but  it  was  right 
that  Onesimus  should  go  back  to  his  master.  Paul 
charged  Tychicus  with  the  duty  of  soliciting  pardon 
for  the  runaway  slave,  and  wrote  this  touching  letter 
as  well. 

The  letter  is  addressed  principally  to  Philemon,  but 
also  to  Apphia,  to  Archippus,  and  to  the  church  that 
assembled  in  Philemon's  house.  The  name  of 
Philemon  occurs  frequently  in  the  Greek  inscriptions 
of  Asia  Minor.  He  may  have  been  a  native  of 
Colossas,  at  all  events  he  lived  there.  He  was  wealthy, 
generous  to  the  brethren,  and  he  allowed  them  to 
hold  their  meetings  in  his  house.  He  had  been  made 
a  Christian  by  St  Paul,  we  do  not  know  when  or 
where,  but  it  may  have  been  while  the  Apostle  lived 
at  Ephesus  from  which  to  Colossse  the  distance  is  not 
great. 

Apphia  was  probably  Philemon's  wife.  Her  name 
is  Phrygian,  and  is  often  found  in  inscriptions. 
Archippus  the  fellow-soldier  of  St  Paul  is  believed  to 
be  Philemon's  son.  He  seems  to  have  held  some 
official  position  in  the  church,  for  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Colossians  the  Apostle  reminds  him  to  consider  well 
the  ministry  SiuKoUav  that  he  had  received  from  the 


OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT         235 

Lord  (iv.  17).  We  do  not  know  what  that  ministry 
was.  Nor  do  we  know  whether  the  message  from  the 
Apostle  implies  blame  or  simply  encouragement. 

Analysis. — After  mentioning  those  to  whom  the 
letter  is  addressed,  St  Paul  praises  the  faith  and 
charity  of  Philemon.  Then  he  intercedes  for  Onesimus. 
We  do  not  give  the  words  of  this  intercession,  they 
must  be  read  in  the  epistle  itself.  He  concludes  by 
asking  that  a  lodging  may  be  prepared  for  him  at 
Colossse,  and  he  sends  salutations. 

Authe?iticity. — This  epistle  is  mentioned  in  the 
Canon  of  Muratori,  and  is  found  in  the  ancient  Latin 
and  Syriac  versions.  Tertullian  tells  us  that  Marcion 
kept  it  in  his  Apostolicon.  Origen  {hom.  in  Jerem.  19) 
formerly  attributed  it  to  St  Paul  and  quotes  passages 
from  it.  Eusebius  {hist.  iii.  3,  5)  places  it  among  the 
homologoumena.  St  Jerome  in  Philem.  says  that 
some  refused  to  believe  that  it  was  written  by  St 
Paul,  and  they  held  that  if  it  was  his,  it  was  not  in- 
spired, as  it  contained  nothing  towards  edification, 
but  was  merely  a  letter  of  recommendation.  St 
Jerome's  answer  is  that  all  the  epistles  of  St  Paul 
contain  allusions  to  current  events,  and  that  this 
epistle  would  not  have  been  received  by  all  the 
churches  if  it  had  not  been  genuine.  St  John  Chry- 
sostom  bears  the  same  testimony.  Christian  Baur, 
Weizsacker,  Pfleiderer,  Steck,  and  van  Manen  deny 
the  authenticity  of  this  epistle  on  various  pretexts : 
differences  of  language,  play  upon  the  name  Onesimus, 
analogy  of  the  Clementine  Recognitions,  imitation  of 
two  letters  of  Pliny  the  Younger.  Holtzman  accepts 
it,  all  but  the  verses  4-6.  Renan  {Antichrist,  p.  96) 
says :  "  Few  pages  are  so  evidently  sincere  as  these. 
No  one  but  Paul  can  have  written  this  perfect  little 
composition." 


236  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

In  truth,  in  spite  of  seven  hapaoclegomena,  we  find 
here   the    Apostle's    own    language,    several   of   his 

favourite    expressions  :     eTrlyvcocn?,     Trapprja-la,    7rapaK\t]ai9, 

TOL^a  the  last  mentioned  occurring  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans  only,  his  phraseology,  his  metaphors  10 
=  1  Cor.  iv.  15.  The  words  and  the  sentences  here 
are  strikingly  similar  to  those  of  the  other  epistles  of 
the  captivity,  which  proves  that  the  epistles  to  the 
Ephesians,  Colossians  and  Philemon  were  written  at 
the  same  period  ;  they  mention  the  same  persons : 
Timothy,  Phil.  i.  1,  Col.  i.  1  ;  Archippus,  Col.  iv.  17 ; 
Onesimus,  Col.  iv.  9  ;  Aristarchus,  Col.  iv.  10  ;  Mark, 
Col.  iv.  10;  Epaphras,  Col.  i.  7  ;  Luke,  Col.  iv.  14; 
Demas,  Col.  iv.  14.  Philemon  alone  is  not  mentioned, 
perhaps  for  the  very  reason  that  there  was  a  separate 
letter  for  him. 

Finally  we  may  quote  from  Sabatier  {Paul,  p.  234) : 
"  Only  a  few  familiar  lines,  but  how  graceful,  how 
full  of  salt  and  of  serious  and  confiding  affection  1 
This  short  epistle  is  like  a  pearl  in  the  treasury  of  the 
New  Testament.  What  a  splendid  realisation  it  is 
of  Paul's  own  precept  to  the  Colossians :  Let  your 
speech  always  be  graceful,  seasoned  with  salt,  that 
you  may  know  how  to  answer  each  one  I  "  (iv.  6). 


10.    TO   WHOM   THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE  PHILIPPIANS   WAS 

WRITTEN 

The  town  of  Philippi  was  situated  at  the  North- 
West  of  Mount  Panggeus  which  stood  between  it  and 
the  Egean  Sea.  It  was  built  where  in  olden  times 
stood  the  village  of  Datos  first,  and  then  the  village 
called  Crenides  (springs)  by  Philip  King  of  Macedon 
from  whom  it  took  its  name.     He  had  built  it  in  a 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         237 

situation  of  great  natural  strength,  on  a  hill  that 
formed  as  it  were  a  wedge  in  the  plain  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Pangaeus.  In  later  times  the  town  spread  out 
into  the  plain  which  was  watered  by  many  springs 
and  by  the  River  Gangites.  The  plain  of  Philippi 
was  famed  for  its  fertility.  The  Egnatian  road  ran 
through  it.  When  Octavius  and  Antony  had  beaten 
the  army  of  Brutus  and  Cassius,  they  founded  the 
colony  of  Philippi  and  gave  it  the  title  of:  Colonia 
Augusta  Julia  Victrix  Philippensium  and  granted  to 
it  the  Jus  italicum.  Hence  the  town  had  the  political 
institutions  of  Rome :  a  senate,  magistrates,  and 
decemvirs  elected  by  the  citizens  and  entitled  to  lictors 
with  fasces,  and  was  exempt  from  the  taxes  to  which 
conquered  countries  were  liable. 

The  first  colonists  were  the  soldiers  of  the  guard  of 
Antony  and  Octavius.  Eleven  years  later,  partisans 
of  Antony's  transplanted  from  Italy  were  also  settled 
at  Philippi.  Probably  part  of  the  population  was 
Macedonian,  as  we  may  judge  from  the  mixture  of 
Greek  and  Roman  divinities  in  local  worship.  Some 
Jews  were  there  also,  but  only  a  small  number,  for 
they  had  no  synagogue,  they  had  to  be  contented 
with  a  TTpoa-ev^ij  SL  place  where  they  met  to  pray  on 
the  banks  of  a  stream  where  they  could  perform  the 
prescribed  ablutions. 

It  was  at  this  Trpoa-evx^,  that  St  Paul  when  he  had 
been  called  by  a  vision  to  Macedonia,  first  preached 
Christ  to  the  Philippians.  None  but  women  seem  to 
have  been  present  at  the  meeting  (Acts  xvi.  13),  and 
one  of  them,  a  proseljrte  named  Lydia  of  Thyatira, 
who  sold  purple,  listened  to  the  word  of  Paul  and 
was  baptised  with  her  whole  household.  She  con- 
strained the  Apostle  and  his  companions  to  go  and 
dwell  in  her  house.     They  continued  to  attend  at  the 


238  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

place  of  prayer,  and  made  a  number  of  converts,  for 
we  read  (xvi.  40)  that  St  Paul  as  he  was  leaving  the 
city  went  to  the  house  of  Lydia  and  encouraged  the 
brethren. 

This  was  the  first  church  that  St  Paul  founded  in 
the  West.  It  consisted  principally  of  Gentiles,  and 
women  appear  to  have  been  more  prominent  here 
than  in  any  other  church.  In  this  epistle  (iv.  2)  St 
Paul  mentions  two  of  them :  Evodia  and  Syntyche 
who  seem  to  have  possessed  much  influence,  since  he 
exhorts  them  to  be  of  one  mind ;  this  implies  that 
discord  between  them  was  detrimental  to  the  church. 
They  had  contributed  with  St  Paul  to  the  spreading 
of  the  Gospel.  The  preponderance  of  women  at 
Philippi  is  not  surprising,  for  the  inscriptions  show 
that  socially  they  had  much  greater  influence  here 
than  elsewhere. 

The  church  prospered  in  spite  of  persecution 
(2  Cor.  viii.  2).  It  sent  money  to  St  Paul  twice 
at  Thessalonica  (iv.  16),  once  at  Corinth  (2  Cor.  xi.  9), 
and  once  at  Rome  (Philip,  iv.  18). 

He  loved  this  church  (i.  3).  He  never  accepted 
money  from  any  other  church.  He  visited  it  several 
times.  In  the  autumn  57-58  he  stopped  there  on 
his  way  to  Ephesus  and  Corinth,  on  his  way  from 
Corinth  to  Jerusalem  he  celebrated  Easter  at  Philippi 
(Acts  XX.  6),  and  it  is  probable  that  after  his  first  de- 
liverance from  captivity  he  realised  his  hope  (ii.  24)  of 
going  to  see  the  Philippians.  It  may  be  that  he  was 
with  them  when  he  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy. 
He  seems  to  have  written  to  them  other  letters  be- 
sides this  one.  Polycarp  speaks  of  them  in  the  plural 
eTTiaroXai  (Philip,  iii.  2).  No  doubt  the  Apostle 
acknowledged  their  gifts  of  money,  he  seems  in 
iii.  1  to  allude  to  his  former  letters. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         239 


11.    OBJECT    AND    OCCASION    OF   THE    EPISTLE 

The  Philippians  had  sent  Epaphroditus  to  St  Paul 
in  prison  with  a  present  of  money  and  gifts  (ii.  25 
and  iv.  18).  The  messenger  not  only  fulfilled  this 
duty,  but  became  a  fellow-labourer  of  St  Paul's. 
His  strength  however  failed  him,  he  fell  ill,  and  was 
for  a  time  in  danger  of  death  (ii.  27).  When  he 
recovered,  St  Paul  sent  him  back  to  Philippi  with 
this  epistle.  The  principal  object  of  the  letter  was 
to  thank  them  for  their  gifts. 

No  other  epistle  of  St  Paul's  is  so  personal  as  this 
one.  Its  tone  is  less  oratorical  and  more  familiar, 
its  plan  is  not  very  clearly  marked,  it  consists  of  a 
series  of  counsels  and  of  outpourings  in  which  the 
writer  rises  to  the  loftiest  heights  of  religious  thought. 
He  is  not  afraid  to  speak  openly  of  his  fears  as  well 
as  his  hopes,  he  reveals  with  some  bitterness  his  in- 
most thoughts  of  his  fellow-labourers  who  seek  their 
own  interests  and  not  those  of  Christ.  Sabatier 
(Paul,  p.  265)  says :  "  In  this  epistle  one  sentiment 
or  thought  evokes  another  in  the  most  natural  and 
harmonious  manner  possible.  The  whole  was  written 
as  it  were  without  pause  or  interruption.  Theological 
thoughts  are  not  uppermost.  The  principal  place 
belongs  to  the  feelings  of  his  soul  and  to  the  maturity 
of  his  religious  life.  The  wealth  of  Christian  experi- 
ences, the  plenitude  of  faith,  the  force  and  delicacy 
of  affection  remind  one  of  the  best  chapters  in  the 
second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  The  inner  life 
overflowing  is  the  same  here  as  there,  but  long 
endured  trials  and  long  meditation  have  made  it 
calmer,  riper,  deeper.  The  Apostle  does  go  back 
sometimes  to  speak  with  the  severity  of  former  days, 


240  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

yet  his  severity  is  now  more  gentle,  there  is  more 
resignation  in  it  (iii.  2  and  iv.  18).  He  is  prepared 
to  hve  or  die,  as  it  shall  please  God,  and  so  his  soul 
is  less  passionate  and  more  tender,  less  jealous  and 
more  detached.  He  moves  us  less.  But  he  touches 
us  more.  He  betrays  a  gentle  melancholy.  The 
crown  of  martyrdom  seems  to  have  cast  its  shadow 
upon  him." 

As  the  thoughts  are  not  in  this  epistle  disposed 
according  to  any  regular  plan,  we  will  give  them 
simply  as  they  come. 


12.    ANALYSIS    OF   THE    EPISTLE 

Prologue  (i.  1-11). — Paul  and  Timothy  to  the 
saints  at  Philippi  with  the  bishops  and  deacons  grace 
and  peace.  Paul  thanks  God  for  the  part  they  have 
in  the  Gospel. 

Historical  part  (i.  12-ii.  30). — His  captivity  has 
helped  to  spread  the  truth,  he  is  known  universally 
as  a  prisoner  on  account  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  brethren 
speak  with  greater  confidence,  though  some  preach 
Christ  with  the  intention  of  making  the  Apostle's 
imprisonment  less  bearable  ;  but  whatever  the  motive 
may  be,  he  rejoices  that  Christ  is  preached,  for  he 
knows  that  he  will  be  the  gainer  whether  he  lives  or 
dies.  He  knows  not  what  to  wish,  for  to  be  dissolved 
and  be  with  Christ  is  far  the  better,  but  to  remain  in 
the  flesh  is  more  necessary  for  their  sake.  Therefore 
he  is  confident  that  he  will  live  and  visit  them  again. 

Let  them  live  worthily  of  the  Gospel.  If  there 
be  any  consolation  in  Christ,  any  comfort  in  charity, 
any  communion  of  spirit,  let  them  fill  up  his  joy  full 
by  being  of  one  mind.     Let  them  feel  in  themselves 


OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT         241 

what  they  feel  in  Christ  who  being  in  the  form  of 
God  emptied  Himself  and  took  the  form  of  a  servant, 
becoming  obedient  unto  the  death  of  the  cross. 

Let  them  be  obedient  in  his  absence  as  they  were 
in  his  presence.  God  works  in  them  to  will  and  to 
perform.  He  wants  them  to  be  his  glory  in  the  day 
of  Christ,  so  that  he  may  not  have  run  in  vain  or 
laboured  in  vain. 

He  will  send  to  them  Timothy  and  Epaphroditus 
(ii.  19-30).  Soon  he  hopes  to  send  Timothy.  No 
one  else  with  the  Apostle  is  so  interested  in  the  wel- 
fare of  the  Philippians,  the  others  seek  their  own 
interests  and  not  Christ's.  He  will  send  Timothy  as 
soon  as  his  trial  is  decided,  and  hopes  to  go  himself 
to  see  them.  Meanwhile  he  sends  Epaphroditus 
whom  God  has  restored  to  health  lest  Paul  should 
have  sorrow  upon  sorrow. 

Moral  part  (iii.  1-iv.  9). — He  puts  them  on  their 
guard  as  to  false  teachers  whom  he  calls  dogs,  workers 
of  evil,  the  bad  circumcision.  "  We  are,  he  says,  the 
circumcision,  because  we  serve  God  in  spirit."  Paul 
could  boast  of  being  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  etc., 
but  what  he  once  esteemed  gain  he  now  esteems  to 
be  loss.  Not  that  he  has  yet  attained  or  is  perfect, 
but  he  pursues  in  order  to  overtake  Him  by  whom 
he  is  overtaken  Christ  Jesus. 

Personal  exhortations  (iv.  2-9). — He  mentions  two 
persons  whom  he  wishes  to  be  of  one  mind. 

Evilogue  (iv.  10-23). — He  thanks  them  for  their 
gifts.  Not  that  he  had  been  in  want.  He  has  learned 
to  have  enough  with  whatever  he  has.  He  knows 
how  to  be  lowly,  and  he  knows  how  to  have  plenty. 
He  can  do  all  things  in  Him  that  strengthens  him. 
But  they  have  done  well  in  helping  him.  They  alone 
of  all  the  churches  had  in  the  beginning  of  his  preach- 


242  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

ing  given  him  help  in  his  wants.  He  mentions  how 
they  sent  him  gifts  twice  in  Thessalonica.  Not  that 
he  seeks  their  gifts,  he  seeks  their  reward.  He  sends 
salutations  from  all  the  saints,  especially  from  those 
of  the  household  of  Cesar. 


13.    TIME   AND    PLACE    OF    WRITING 

Some  critics :  Paulus,  Bottger,  Billiet,  Thiersch, 
Macpherson,  hold  that  this  epistle  was  written  at 
Cesarea.  The  general  opinion  now,  even  among 
those  who  believe  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians, 
Colossians  and  Philemon  to  have  been  written  at 
Cesarea,  is  that  this  one  was  written  at  Rome.  The 
mention  of  the  pretorium  and  of  the  house  of  Cesar 
indicate  Rome  and  not  Cesarea.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  good  and  wicked  preachers  is  not  applicable 
except  in  a  church  of  considerable  importance.  If  it 
had  been  written  from  Cesarea,  Timothy  would  not 
have  been  mentioned  in  it,  but  Luke  or  Aristarchus 
instead. 

What  really  is  in  dispute  is  whether  it  was  written 
at  the  beginning  or  at  the  end  of  the  captivity  in 
Rome,  and  whether  it  precedes  the  other  epistles  of 
the  captivity  or  not.  Opinions  are  greatly  divided. 
And  the  arguments  which  we  are  about  to  mention 
are  not  decisive. 

The  events  that  are  mentioned  :  St  Paul  being 
deserted  by  all  except  Timothy  (ii.  20),  the  absence  of 
Luke  and  Aristarchus,  the  fruit  of  his  preaching  in 
the  pretorium  (i.  12)  and  in  the  house  of  Cesar  (iv.  22), 
suppose  that  his  stay  in  Rome  had  lasted  some  time. 
Besides  two  voyages  backward  and  forward  are 
indicated  in  the  epistle :    a  message  from  Rome  to 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         243 

Philippi  to  carry  the  news  that  St  Paul  was  im- 
prisoned there,  voyage  of  Epaphroditus  from  Philippi 
to  Rome,  illness  of  Epaphroditus  at  Rome,  message 
making  this  illness  known  at  Philippi,  and  a  message 
from  Philippi  expressing  the  anxiety  of  the  friends 
of  Epaphroditus ;  all  this  required  time.  And  the 
general  tone  of  the  epistle  shows  the  sadness  and 
discouragement  that  would  be  the  result  of  a  long 
imprisonment.  Yet  he  hopes  to  be  set  free  soon,  he 
could  hardly  have  had  this  hope  at  the  beginning. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  said  that :  nothing  positive 
can  be  inferred  from  the  presence  or  absence  of  the 
Apostle's  companions,  all  that  is  said  in  i.  13-19  as  to 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  may  have  taken  place  in 
a  short  time  because  the  church  of  Rome  had  long 
before  this  been  founded  and  was  no  doubt  already  an 
important  church,  the  four  voyages  may  have  taken 
no  more  than  four  months  as  the  distance  from  Rome 
to  Philippi  is  only  1200  kilometres,  and  the  sadness 
of  the  tone  of  the  epistle  is  denied,  the  tone  is  said  to 
be  joyful  and  hopeful. 

Those  who  say  that  this  epistle  was  written  at  the 
beginning  of  the  captivity :  Lightfoot,  Hort,  Farrar, 
point  to  numerous  analogies  between  it  and  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  more 
numerous  analogies  between  the  epistle  to  the  Romans 
and  those  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians.  If  this 
epistle  comes  after  the  one  to  the  Colossians,  it  ought 
to  contain  some  allusion  to  the  semi-gnostic  Judaism 
against  which  that  epistle  was  written.  But  why 
should  St  Paul  write  against  that  form  of  Judaism  if 
it  was  not  known  at  Philippi  ? 

Finally,  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  this  epistle  was 
written  before  or  after  the  other  epistles  of  the 
captivity,  whether  at  the  beginning  or  at  the  end  of 


244  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

the  stay  in  Rome ;  therefore  we  may  place  it  about 
62-64  A.D. 


14.  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS 

The  earliest  ecclesiastical  writers  refer  more  or  less 
directly  to  this  epistle,  but  those  references  are  not 
numerous  because  the  epistle  is  neither  long  nor 
doctrinal.  The  passage  that  is  oftenest  quoted  or 
alluded  to  is  ii.  5-11  on  the  kenosis.  Clement  of  Rome 
doubtless  drew  his  inspiration  from  it  when  he  wrote 
to  the  Corinthians  (xvi.  1) :  "  Christ  belongs  to  those 
who  are  humble  and  who  do  not  raise  themselves  up 
above  His  flock,  etc'  Cf.  also  the  same  writer  (1  Cor. 
47  =  Phil.  iv.  15,  ib.  21  =  Phil.  i.  27,  ib.  ii.  =  Ph.  i.  10 
and  ii.  15). 

Cf.  also  Ignatius  of  Antioch  (Rom.  ii,  =Phil.  ii.  17, 
Philad.  8  =  Ph.  ii.  3,  Smyrn.  4  =  Ph.  iv.  \^,  ib.  11  = 
Phil.  iii.  15. 

Polycarp  of  Smyrna  reminds  the  Philippians  twice 
(3  and  11)  of  St  Paul's  having  written  to  them,  and 
passages  in  his  letter  prove  that  he  had  read  the 
epistle  to  the  Philippians :  1  =  Ph.  iv.  10,  2  =  Ph.  ii.  10, 
9  =  Ph.  ii.  16,  10  =  Ph.  ii.  2-5,  12  =  Ph.  iii.  18. 

Traces  are  also  to  be  found  in  the  Pastor  of  Hermas, 
in  the  Testaments  of  the  twelve  Patriarchs,  in  the 
epistle  to  Diognetus  (5  =  Ph.  iii.  20),  in  Justin  Martyr, 
in  Melito,  in  Theophilus,  and  in  the  epistle  of  the 
churches  of  Vienna  and  Lyons  which  quotes  word  for 
word  ii.  6  on  the  kenosis. 

Among  heretics  the  Sethians  (Hipp.  Pliilosoph.  5, 
10),  the  Valentinian  Cassianus  (Clem.  Al.  Strom.  3, 
14),  Theodotus  {ib.  Excerpt)  and  the  apocryphal 
Acts  of  Thomas  (26)  quote  from   this   epistle.     It 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         245 

was  in  Marcion's  Apostolicon,  and  in  the  Latin  and 
Syriac  versions.  Ireneus,  Tertullian  {dc  res.  cam.  23), 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Peed.  1,  6,  52 ;  Strom.  4, 
13)  quote  passages  from  this  epistle  attributing  them 
to  St  Paul.     Lastly  it  is  in  the  Canon  of  Muratori. 

Internal  arguments  had  led  some  critics  to  say  that 
this  epistle  is  not  pauline.  An  Englishman  named 
Evanson  was  the  first,  after  him  came  Schrader, 
Baur,  Zeller,  Schwegler,  Hitzig,  Hinsch,  Holsten, 
and  Hockstra.  All  the  Catholic  critics  are  for  the 
authenticity,  and  so  are  the  most  notable  Protestant 
critics :  de  Wette,  Reuss,  Hilgenfeld,  Pfleiderer, 
Harnack,  Weizsiicker,  Lipsius,   Holtzman,  Jiilicher. 

We  need  not  discuss  Baur's  objections,  because 
they  have  been  set  aside  by  later  critics  who  also 
deny  the  authenticity,  Holsten  holds  that  they  have 
been  refuted,  he  says  that  they  are  weak  and  have 
been  forgotten,  and  he  brings  objections  of  his  own 
which  are  drawn  from  the  language  and  the  doctrine. 

Language  of  the  Epistle.— There  are  in  it  41  words 
that  are  peculiar  to  this  epistle,  and  of  these  7  occur 

for  the  first  time  :  €v->^v^e'iv^  eiri^opriyopla,  OKTcuj/nepo^, 
Trapa^ouXeveaOai,  erufijuopcjil^ecrOai,  <7uviuifir]T)]g,  avir^p^vyo^  ;  this 

is  about  the  usual  proportion,  so  that  it  does  not  tell 
against  the  authenticity.  We  find  here  20  words 
^pa^eiov,  SoKi/jLT],  evSei^i^,  kcvow,  etc.,  that  are  strictly 
pauline,  since  they  are  never  found  anywhere  in  the 
New  Testament  except  in  St  Paul.     And  3  words 

diroKapaSoKia,    OLTrpocrKoiro^,    arvvKOivaivo^    USed    first     by     St 

Paul  are  in  this  epistle.  His  familiar  words,  phrases, 
and  peculiarities  of  style  may  be  noticed  :  i.  22-27-29 
and  iii.  8-14.  The  repetition  of  certain  words  is  quite 
pauline :  TreiOeiv  6  times,  (ppoveiv  10  times,  Koivwvla  and 
its  derivatives  6  times,  x^ipeiv  and  its  derivatives  6 
times. 


246  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Doctrine  of  the  epistle.  —  The  Christology  is  said 
not  to  be  in  agreement  with  that  of  the  first  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  In  the  latter,  Christ  is  con- 
ceived in  His  pre-existence  as  a  heavenly  man  avOpwiro^ 
iirovpapio?  (xv.  47-49),  whercas  in  this  epistle  to  the 
Philippians  (ii.  6-11)  He  pre-exists  as  a  divine  being 
"  in  the  form  of  God "  and  becomes  man  at  the 
Incarnation.  There  has  been  much  discussion  on 
this  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  but  it 
v/ is  quite  in  agreement  with  the  pauline  epistles;  the 
sum-total  is  that  Christ  existed  first  as  God  and  then 
i  became  man,  and  that  is  exactly  what  he  teaches 
(Gal.  iv.  4):  "God  sent  his  Son  made  of  a  woman," 
'  and  (Rom.  viii.  3) :  "  God  sent  his  own  Son  in  the 
flesh,"  etc.,  and  (2  Cor.  viii.  9):  "Jesus  Christ  being 
rich  became  poor."  And  in  any  case,  there  is  no 
contradiction,  because  to  the  Corinthians  St  Paul 
spoke  of  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  whereas  to  the 
Philippians  he  spoke  of  Christ  before  the  Incarnation. 
V  The  word  e-n-ovpavios  in  St  Paul  means  one  who  is  in 
heaven  (Eph.  iv.  8 ;  Phil.  ii.  9  and  iii.  20-21). 

The  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  the  same  as 
in  the  other  epistles,  though  the  way  in  which  it  is 
expressed  is  not  the  same :  StKaioa-vvtj  rj  ck  Oeou,  e-Trl  rti 
TTia-Tei  (iii.  9).     Compare  Gal.  i.  14  =  Ph.  iii.  6. 

The  other  objections  find  their  solution  in  a  careful 
study  of  the  passages  in  question.  Most  of  them  are 
v'not  very  real.  Holsten,  the  most  determined  ad- 
versary of  the  pauline  origin  of  this  epistle,  admits 
in  his  latest  work  that  the  doctrine  is  quite  pauline. 
Therefore  we  may  say  that  at  the  present  time  no 
one  calls  the  authenticity  in  question.  We  need  not 
V  discuss  the  hypotheses  of  Volter  who  admits  as 
pauline  only  the  passages:  i.  1-7,  12,  14,  18,  26;  ii. 
17-29 ;  iv.  10-21,  23,  or  of  Clemen  who  thinks  that 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         247 

we  have  here  two  letters,  the  one  consisting  of  i.  1-7 
(except  the  words :  bishops  and  deacons),  12-16  ;  n.\j 
17-20  ;  iv.  10-21,  23  ;  and  the  other  of  i.  8-11,  27-30  ; ' 
ii.  1-16,  19-24;  iii.  2-4,  3,  8,  9.     These   hypotheses 
have  been  put  forward  in  one  form  or  another  by 
other  critics,  Paulus,  Hausrath,  and  are  based  gener- 
ally upon  the  fact  that  this  epistle  contains  a  mixture 
of  personal  details,  moral  advice  and  dogma.     We 
must  admit  that  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  con- 
structed upon  a  different  plan.     But  we  must  not 
omit  to  notice  that  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians  is 
not  a  theological  treatise,  it  is  only  a  familiar  letter 
from  a  father  to  his  children  to  thank  them  for  a  gift 
and  to  give  them  good  advice.     If  St  Paul  speaks 
also  of  dogmas  connected  with  the  good  advice,  that 
is  only  what  he  usually  does.    Finally  it  is  not  correct 
to  say  that  we  have  in  iii.  1  "  As  for  the  rest,  my 
brethren,  rejoice  in  the  Lord  "  the  ending  of  a  letter, 
for  that  expression  to  Xoittov  often  serves  to  introduce 
a  fresh  subject  (1  Cor.  vii.  29 ;  Philip,  iv.  8 ;  1  Thess. 
iv.  1 ;  2  Thess.  iii.  1).     Or  if  you  insist  that  this  is  a 
conclusion  of  a  first  letter,  we  have  no  fault  to  find, 
provided  you  allow  the  remainder  also  to  be  genuine. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   PASTORAL  EPISTLES 

The  two  epistles  to  Timothy  and  the  epistles  to 
Titus  are  called  pastoral  epistles  because  they  were 
written  to  pastors  on  their  duties  as  shepherds  of  the 
flock.  The  first  question  that  we  have  to  settle  with 
regard  to  them  is  the  question  of  authorship. 

1.    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THESE    EPISTLES 

These  epistles  have  been  known  since  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century.  They  have  left  their  mark 
on  the  earliest  Christian  writers :  Clement  of  Rome, 
Barnabas  and  Polycarp.  They  were  attributed  to 
St  Paul  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century  by 
Ireneus,  Tertullian,  and  the  Canon  of  Muratori ;  and 
are  considered  by  the  whole  of  Christian  tradition  to 
be  pauline.  No  one  before  the  nineteenth  century 
questioned  their  authenticity.  In  1804  Schmidt  ex- 
pressed doubts  as  to  the  first  to  Timothy.  Schleier- 
macher  accepts  the  epistle  to  Titus,  but  expresses 
doubts  as  to  the  second  to  1'imothy,  and  holds  that 
the  first  was  fabricated  from  the  other  two.  Eich- 
horn  rejects  all  three  attributing  them  to  a  disciple 
of  St  Paul.  Schott  attributes  them  to  St  Luke. 
De  Wette  declares  that  anyone  who  reads  these 
epistles  with  his  eyes  open,  can  see  that  they  are 
not  authentic.  Credner  accepts  the  epistle  to  Titus, 
but  rejects  the  first  to  Timothy  and  holds  that  the 

248 


BOOKS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT      249 

second  is  formed  from  two  authentic  pauline  letters. 
Baur  and  certain  critics  of  his  school :  Schwegler  and 
Hilgenfeld  deny  the  authenticity  of  these  two  epistles 
and  relegate  them  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
Mangold  assigns  them  to  the  end  of  that  century. 

Credner's  view  is  in  some  form  or  other  accepted 
by  Hausrath,  Ewald,  Gran,  Sabatier,  Renan,  Knoke, 
Hesse  and  Harnack,  but  others  like  Holtzman, 
Weizsiicker,  Pfleiderer,  von  Soden,  Beyschlag  and 
Jiilicher  reject  that  view  in  all  its  forms,  though 
they  have  their  doubts  as  to  fragments  of  pauline 
writings  having  been  made  use  of. 

Hesse  supposes    that   there  was  a   letter   written 
by   Paul   to   Timothy,    and    that    at    various   times 
extracts  from  various  authors  were  inserted  into  it ; 
he  keeps  as  genuine  everything  that  is  personal  to  the 
writer  and  to  the  recipient  of  the  letter,  he  keeps  also 
all  that  has  reference  to  false  doctrines,  but  rejects 
everything  connected  with  the  organisation  of  the 
Church.     This  is  how  he  divides  the  epistles :   the 
suppressed  parts  are  put  in  brackets :  1  Tim.  i.  1-10 
(11-17)  18-20  (ii.  iii.)  iv.  (v.  l.-vi.  3)  vi.  4-16  (vi.  17-19) 
20-21 ;  the  II.  to  Timothy  is  composed  of  two  letters 
incorporated  together  by  means  of  a  few  sentences 
first   letter:   i.    1-Sa,    5,   10   (11-14);   ii.    1-8,   14-26 
iii    1-16;  iv.  1-5  (6-8)— second  letter:  i.  36,  4,  15-18 
ii.  2,  9-13 ;  iv.  9-22. 

Epistle  to  Titus:  i.  1,  2  (3),  4-6  (7-11),  12,  13rt 
(136-15)  16  (ii.)  iii.  1-6  (7-11)  12-15. 

Knoke  thinks  that  the  writer  had  before  him  a 
genuine  pauline  letter  of  practical  directions,  a 
doctrinal  letter  to  Timothy,  and  a  regulation  on 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy  of  pauline  origin.  This  is 
how  he  pictures  the  composition  of  these  three 
letters : 


250  HISTOKY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

First  one:  i.  1,  3,  4,  18-ii.  10;  iii.  14-iv.  12 ;  v. 
1-3,  5,  6,  11-15,  19-24. 

Second  one:  i.  12-17;  iii.  14-iv.  11,  13-16;  ii.  12- 
15 ;  V.  7-9 ;  vi.  17-19. 

Third  one:  iii.  1-9,  10,  12,  13 ;  ii.  11 ;  v.  9,  10,  16, 
4,  17;  vi.  1,  2. 

Jiilicher  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Manual  supposes 
that  the  writer  joined  together  clumsily  two  letters 
of  Paul  to  Timothy  to  form  the  second  to  Timothy 
adding  ordinances  that  were  necessary  in  the  Church  of 
that  day.  The  epistle  to  Titus  was  made  up  with  the 
help  of  a  fragment  of  an  epistle  to  Titus.  The  first  to 
Timothy  was  written  currente  ccilamo  by  someone 
who  made  use  of  the  ideas  contained  in  the  other  two. 
Harnack  adopts  Jiilicher's  view,  fixes  the  date  of  the 
authentic  portions  at  the  year  59-64,  supposes  that 
the  first  editing  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  took  place 
in  90-100,  and  believes  that  successive  additions  were 
made  down  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  In 
his  third  edition  Jiilicher  is  in  favour  of  unauthenticity 
pure  and  simple. 

Quite  recently  Ewald  (Probabilia  .  .  .  Timotheus- 
briefes,  1901)  has  taken  up  a  new  position.  He  en- 
deavours to  demonstrate  that  in  certain  passages  in 
first  Timothy  there  is  an  interruption  in  the  train  of 
thought,  that  the  ideas  are  disconnected,  and  that  there 
are  no  transitions.  He  proves  that  the  theories  of 
Knoke  and  Hesse  do  not  solve  these  difiiculties,  and 
concludes  that  certain  passages  are  misplaced.  He  says 
that  i.  12-17  should  be  after  i.  2,  and  iii.  14,  iv.  10 
after  vi.  2.  We  do  not  reject  this  hypothesis  a  priori. 
There  are  cases  in  which  passages  have  been  misplaced. 
We  admit  also  that  this  rearrangement  does  connect 
the  ideas  better.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  in  the 
original  the  passages  were  arranged  in  that  way,  for 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         251 

in  other  epistles  of  St  Paul  we  find  solutions  of  con- 
tinuity quite  as  marked  as  these.  Besides  there  is 
you  may  say  no  plan  in  these  epistles,  they  treat  of  a 
number  of  subjects  which  naturally  tend  to  digres- 
sions. We  need  not  therefore  discuss  this  hypothesis 
any  further,  especially  as  it  does  not  deny  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  epistle. 

A  general  refutation  of  all  the  other  hypothesis 
taken  together  can  only  be  found  in  a  demonstration 
that  the  three  pastoral  epistles  were  written  from 
beginning  to  end  by  St  Paul. 

Unity  of  composition  of  the  three  epistles. — This 
unity  is  seen  in  the  close  connection  of  the  three  in 
matter  and  in  form.  By  form  we  mean  language. 
An  attentive  reader  must  be  struck  with  this  at 
once,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  is  only  one 
author,  he  is  not  afraid  of  putting  down  the  same 
thoughts,  or  of  putting  them  down  in  the  same  terms, 
when  the  situation  is  the  same,  or  when  he  has  to 
make  the  same  regulations,  or  to  give  the  same  ex- 
hortations. All  this  may  be  said  to  be  subjective  and 
a  matter  of  appreciation.  Let  us  therefore  come  to 
definite  facts. 

There  are  897  words  in  these  epistles  and  more  than 
a  quarter  of  them  are  common  to  two  or  to  all  three. 
Of  these  common  words  some  are  found  nowhere  else 

in  the  New  Testament :  ala-x^poKepSrj^,  afxa-)(o^f  avarpeireiVy 
av6(rio9,  yeveaXoyia^Sia/Se/SaiovaOai,  ^layeiVyOioaKTiKo?,  ei/cre/8ft)p, 
Kevo(poovLa,  i'}](paXio9,  cre/mvoTr]?,  TrapaOrjy^t],  etC.  Or  in  the 
other  epistles  of  St  Paul  :  dirla,  aTroXeiTreiu,  dpyoi, 
apvetaOat,      oecrTroT*??,      eirlOeai?,      evcre/Seia^      U^Tfjai^,      Krjpv^^ 

fjieraXaiii^aveiv,  etc.  Certain  derivatives  occur  very 
frequently  in  all  the  three  epistles :  StSaKTiKo?,  SiSaaKoXog, 

oiSacTKaXla ',  crcocbpMv,  (roxppovcog^  crMCppocrvvr]^  aooippovicfios ', 
vyiii9,vyiaivov<Ta,vyiaivS>v^  vyiaiv€iv',olK09,  o<Vm,  oiKeio?^  oiKOvofiia^ 


252  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

etc.  Lastly  expressions  or  whole  sentences  are 
common  to  all  the  three  epistles :  eTriyvwcng  aXtjOeia^^ 
(1  Tim.  ii.  4  ;  2  Tim  ii.  25;  Titus  i.  1) ;  Kuipolg  ISIok 
(lTim.ii.6  ;  Titus  i.  3) ;  r^v  -n-apaOriKriv  (pvXa^ov  (1  Tim.vi. 
20  ;  2  Tim.  i.  14) ;  tt/o-to?  6  \6yo^  (1  Tim.  i.  15  ;  2  Tim. 
ii.  11 ;  Titus  iii.  8) ;  Tra-y/?  roO  §ia(36\ov  (1  Tim.  iii.  7  ; 

2  Tim.  ii.  26);  Tnarevoixai  TO  evayyeXiov  (1  Tim.  i.  11  ; 
Titus  i.  3)  ;   etV  nrav  epyov  ayaOov  ^Toifiaa-fievo?  (2  Tim.  U. 

21 ;  Titus  iii.  1) ;  epya  KoXa  which  is  found  nowhere  else 
in  St  Paul,  but  is  found  four  times  in  1  Tim.,  and  four 
times  in  Titus ;  tutto?  toov  ttuttwv  (1  Tim  iv.   12) ;  tvtto^ 

kolXwv  epywv  (TituS   ii.   7)  ;   8iaixapTvpoixai   evunriov  tov   Oeov 

(1  Tim.  V.  21 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  14,  iv.  1)  ;  eirKpaveia  tou  Kvplov 
(1  Tim.  vi.  14 ;  2  iv.  1,  8) ;  eTrayyeXla  ^(0^9  (2  Tim  i.  1 ; 

1  Tim.  iv.  8) ;  and  these  latinisms  which  are  found 
nowhere  else  in  St  Paul :  8i  t]v  aiTtav  quam  oh  causam 
(2  Tim.  1  ;  vi.  12;  Titus  i.  13) ;  x^P'''  %"'  (1  Tim.  i.  12  ; 

2  Tim.  i.  3);  these  connections:  wv  earlv  (1  Tim.  i. 
20  ;  2  ii.  17) ;  ^(ravrm  (1  Tim.  ii.  9  ;  Titus  ii.  3-6). 

One  might  even  say  that  these  three  epistles  copy 
one  another  (2  Tim.  ii.  23  =  1  Tim.  i.  4,  iv.  7,  vi.  4, 
Titus  iii.  9 ;  1  Tim.  iv.  1  =  2  Tim.  iii.  1  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  7 
=  2  Tim.  i.  11 ;  1  Tim.  v.  7  =  2  Tim.  ii.  16-23,  Titus 
i.  14,  iii.  9 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  7  =  2  Tim.  i.  11 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  2-4 
=  Titus  i.  6-9  ;  1  Tim.  vi.  11=2  Tim.  ii.  22  ;  1  Tim. 
iv.  12  =  2  Tim.  ii.  15,  etc.). 

When  we  come  to  examine  the  matter  we  find 
that  these  three  epistles  are  closely  allied.  They 
frequently  speak  of  sound  doctrine  vyiaivova-a  SiSaa-KoXla 
(2  Tim.  iv.  3;  Titus  ii.  1),  of  sound  words  vyiaivovre^ 
Xoyoi,  of  our  Lord  (1  Tim.  vi.  3 ;  2  Tim.  i.  13 ;  Titus 
ii.  8)  an  idea  which  in  that  exact  form  is  found  no- 
where else  in  St  Paul.  We  must  live  according  to 
piety  (2  Tim.  iii.  12  ;  Titus  iii.  2).  Later  on  we  shall 
see  that  faith  and  good  works  are  treated  of  in  these 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         253 

epistles  in  a  way  that  is  both  consonant  with  and  yet 
different  from  the  way  in  which  they  are  treated  of 
in  the  other  epistles.  The  qualities  required  in  an 
€TrtcrKOTro9  are  much  the  same  in  1  Tim.  iii.  2-7  and 
Titus  i.  7-9. 

The  errors  condemned  in  the  three  pastorals  are 
very  similar  in  all  three  :  babbling-  (1  Tim.  i.  6,  vi.  20  ; 
2  Tim.  ii.  16 ;  Titus  i.  10),  interminable  genealogies 
(1  Tim.  i.  4 ;  Titus  ii.  9),  which  lead  to  quarrels 
(1  Tim.  i.  4 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  23 ;  Titus  iii.  9). 

From  all  these  similarities  we  must  conclude  that 
the  three  epistles  are  the  work  of  one  author.  Con- 
sequently we  must  reject  the  hypothesis  that  they 
are  composed  of  fragments,  or  of  authentic  short 
letters  of  St  Paul's,  as  well  as  the  less  rash  hypothesis 
that  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy  was  made  up  from 
the  second  and  from  the  epistle  to  Titus. 

Besides,  both  of  these  suppositions  attribute  to  the 
writers  of  that  time  a  habit  that  was  entirely  un- 
known in  those  ages.  Forgeries  are  very  numerous 
in  the  centuries  near  the  birth  of  Christianity :  in  the 
first  century  a.c.  and  in  the  first  and  second  centuries 
A.D.  But  not  one  of  those  forgeries  is  made  up  of 
extracts  from  the  authors  whose  name  they  took, 
not  even  the  false  epistles  of  St  Paul.  The  writers 
never  troubled  to  make  their  forgeries  plausible  by 
imitation  of  style.  Yet  these  hypotheses  suppose 
that  in  this  case  that  was  done.  If  so,  this  would  be 
a  solitary  example  in  those  ages.  Lastly,  was  it  easy 
to  imitate  so  personal  a  style  as  St  Paul's  ? 

Taking  these  hypothesis  as  they  stand,  the  forger 
might  very  well  be  absolved  from  the  guilt  of  forgery, 
because  the  pauline  passages  that  he  inserts  can  have 
no  other  purpose  than  to  give  authenticity  to  the 
remainder  of  the  work,  in  themselves  they  add  no- 


254  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

thing  to  our  knowledge  of  the  mind  of  the  Apostle, 
they  say  what  he  has  already  said  in  other  places. 

A  real  discussion  of  these  hypotheses  is  impossible 
as  long  as  the  critics  are  unable  to  make  a  clear  dis- 
tinction of  false  and  authentic  parts,  and  especially 
as  long  as  they  are  unable  to  agree  among  themselves 
on  that  question.  This  agreement  is  declared  by 
Jiilicher  to  be  impossible,  and  Harnack  is  content 
with  vague  expressions.  We  have  already  mentioned 
how  Hesse  dissects  these  epistles.  Sabatier  admits 
as  apparently  genuine  the  following  fragments : 
2  Tim.  i.  1-18;  2  Tim.  6-22;  Titus  iii.  1-7,  12-15. 
That  is  not  much,  and  we  shall  see  that  more  must 
be  admitted.  Krenkel's  hypothesis  is  the  latest,  he 
admits  only  three  fragments  from  pauline  epistles 
making  together  thirty -three  verses:  (1)  Titus  iii. 
12, 13,  2  Tim.  iv.  20 ;  (2)  2  Tim.  iv.  9-18 ;  (3)  2  Tim. 
iv.  19,  i.  16-18,  iv.  2. 

Our  only  answer  to  all  these  difficulties  must  be 
to  prove  the  unity  of  each  epistle  and  the  fairly 
logical  connection  of  the  development  of  each — this 
will  appear  from  our  analysis — and  to  prove  that  St 
Paul  is  the  author  of  them  taking  them  as  a  whole. 
This  second  part  is  the  one  that  we  will  attempt 
first. 

For  this  purpose  we  must  study  the  language 
and  the  doctrine  of  these  epistles,  the  hierarchy  or 
ecclesiastical  constitution  that  they  presuppose  to  be 
in  existence,  and  finally  the  use  that  has  been  made  of 
them  in  the  Church.  Later  on  we  shall  see  to  what 
period  of  the  life  of  St  Paul  they  belong. 

Language. — There  is  quite  a  marked  difference 
between  these  and  the  other  epistles  both  in  words 
and  in  style,  but  reasons  for  this  difference  can  be 
given,  and  there  is  also  an  undeniable  similarity  to 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT  255 

the  other  pauline  epistles.  And  first  of  all,  we  must 
notice  that  there  is  no  unalterable  type  or  standard 
of  pauline  epistles.  They  vary  considerably  in  lan- 
guage and  form  four  distinct  groups,  each  having  its 
own  peculiarities,  yet  all  being  fundamentally  simi- 
lar: (1)  Epistle  to  Thessalonians ;  (2)  Epistles  to 
Corinthians,  Galatians  and  Romans ;  (3)  Epistles  to 
Colossians,  Ephesians,  Phihppians  and  Philemon  ;  (4) 
pastoral  epistles. 

Vocabulary. — St  Paul  uses  2478  different  words, 
of  which  816  are  not  used  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  pastoral  epistles  contain  897  words, 
and  of  these  171  are  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  18  occur  here  for  the  first  time,  that 
is  they  are  not  found  in  any  author  who  wrote  in  the 
century  anterior  to  Christ,  viz. :  dve^iKUKog,  dvaKaivwtrK, 

dvTiXvTpov,  k^paiooixa,  eKCrirricri^^  eTriSiopOooov,  eTepoSiSacrKoXelv^ 
evayyeXicTTi^^y  eu/xeTaooro?,  KoXoSiSdaKaXo^f  KaracrTpjjvial^eiVf 
Xoyo/ua^eti/,  irpoKpi/iia,  (TuyKaKOTradeiv,  vTrepirXeovaVeiVy  vyp^tjXotp- 

poveiv,  (ppevaTrdrt]^.  There  are  also  114  words  that  are 
found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  but  not  else- 
where in  the  pauline  epistles.  This  makes  a  total  of 
285  words  that  occur  in  these  epistles  but  not  in  any 
other  epistles  of  St  Paul ;  in  other  words,  one  third 
of  the  words  in  these  epistles  is  found  nowhere  else 
in  the  writings  of  St  Paul. 

The  proportion  is  evidently  very  great.  If  we  take 
the  hapaoclegomena  counting  only  the  words  that  are 
not  found  anywhere  in  the  New  Testament  except  in 
St  Paul,  we  find  that  there  are  74  in  1  Tim,  46  in 
2  Tim.  28  in  Titus,  and  23  that  occur  in  more  than 
one  of  the  pastoral  epistles.  Comparing  these  with 
the  other  epistles,  and  allowing  for  the  relative  length 
of  each,  we  find  in  Titus  and  1  Tim.  13  special  words, 
in  2  Tim.  11  words,  Philip.  6,  8;  Col.  6,  3 ;  2  Cor. 


256  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

6;  Eph.  4,  9;  1  Cor.  4,  6;  Rom.  4,  3 ;  2  Thess. 
4,  2 ;  Gal.  4,  1 ;  Philemon  4 ;  2  Thess.  3,  6.  Con- 
sequently the  pastoral  epistles  contain  nearly  twice 
as  many  special  words  as  the  epistle  that  contains  the 
greatest  number,  and  four  times  as  many  as  the  one 
that  contains  the  smallest  number.  Therefore  these 
epistles  stand  quite  apart  from  the  other  epistles. 

When  we  examine  these  hapaoclegomena  in  detail, 
we  can  easily  understand  their  being  here.  More 
than  two  thirds  of  them  are  composite  words  or 
derivatives  of  which  the  simple  form  or  a  different 
composition  is  found  elsewhere  in  St  Paul.  Thus 
avTiXvrpov  (1  Tim.  ii.  6)  corresponds  to  aTroXvTpwcn?  (Eph. 
i.  7) ;  pnrS)?  (l  Tim.  iv.)  corresponds  to  appijTos  (2  Cor.  xii. 
4,  etc. ).  We  must  notice  the  compounds  oivirep  (1  Tim. 
i.  14,  ii.  2  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  2)  ;  this  composition  is  quite 
common  in  St  Paul,  it  occurs  43  times  in  his  epistles : 
Rom.  vii.  13 ;  1  Cor.  vii.  36 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  7 ;  Eph.  i.  19, 
etc.,  whereas  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  it 
occurs  only  9  times. 

St  Paul  is  fond  of  compounds  in  all  his  epistles. 
His  6  compounds  of  (pl\o<s  may  be  compared  with 
(piXoveiKog  (1  Cor.  xi.  16),  ipiXo^ena  (Rom.  xii.  13),  his  5 
of  orK:o9  with  oiKoSoiuLetv  {Gal.  ii.  18),  TrupoiKO<;  (Eph.  ii.  19). 
The  neologisms  erepoSiSaa-KoXeiv,  iepoTrpeTrr'j^  are  quite  as 
much  in  his  manner  as  dpa-evoKoiTri?  (1  Cor.  vi.  9),  or 

TrAeoi/e/cT»??  (1  Cor.  vi.  10). 

Of  the  285  hapaoclegomena  180  are  in  the  Septuagint 
and  could  therefore  not  be  unknown  to  St  Paul.  The 
expressions  picked  out  by  Holtzman  (Einl.  N.  T., 
p.  318)  correspond  to  the  religious  or  moral  state 
presupposed  by  these  epistles,  such  as  :  ^e^rjXog,  eva-e^eta^ 
Kadapos,  KoXog,  cre/mvoTri^,  or  are  technical  terms  referring 

to    heresies ;   yeveaXoyLa,   ^^evSoi)vuiui.o9y   yvwai^,   yvfivacrla,   OF 

to  established  ecclesiastical  states :  iTriaKOTrr'i,  SiSuktikos, 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  257 

ve6(pvT09,  or  describe  true  doctrine  :  e/c^j^x'/o-t?,  Xoyo/j-a-^ia, 

irapaOy'jKrj,  vyo). 

The  expressions  are  new  because  the  situation  was 
new.  St  Paul  had  never  yet  had  to  specify  the 
quahties  required  in  eTr/o-Koxot,  Trpea-^urepoL,  deacons  or 
widows,  nor  had  he  ever  had  to  regulate  the  organisa- 
tion of  the  churches.  Besides  the  new  words  and  the 
difference  of  style  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  sup- 
position that  St  Paul  had  not  now  the  same  secretary 
as  when  he  wrote  his  earlier  epistle. 

The  change  in  the  situation  accounts  also  for  our 
not  finding  here  words  that  occur  frequently  in  the 

other  epistles  :  aKpo/Svarla,  aSiKo?,  aKaOapcria,  jJiiDpia,  SiKaiw/ma, 

KarepyaCecrOai,  etc.  All  these  words  belonged  to  the 
polemics  with  the  Jews,  or  else  they  have  their 
equivalents  in  the  pastoral  epistles. 

One  objection  is  that  the  prepositions  avrl,  a-^^i, 
eju-Trpoa-Oev,  irapa  with  the  accusative,  <rvv,  and  the  con- 
junctions (ipa,  Sio,  SiOTi,  eireiTa,  eTi,  'tSe,  iSov,  cocnrep  which 

are  so  usually  employed  by  St  Paul  are  not  found 
here ;  in  place  of  Sion  we  find  Si  >/V  airlav  which  is  a 
latinism.  This  and  other  latinisms  such  as  x^P^^  h(f^^ 
gratiam  habere,  irpoKpifxa  praejudicium  are  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  late  in  life  St  Paul  was  more  in 
contact  with  the  Latins.  The  absence  of  conjunctions 
proves  nothing,  they  occur  with  no  uniformity,  and 
some  of  them  are  wanting  in  epistles  that  are  quite 
authentic.  Besides  they  could  not  be  employed  so 
frequently  in  the  pastoral  epistles,  because  the  Apostle 
was  not  engaged  in  discussion,  he  was  merely  making 
regulations.  And  certain  prepositions  that  he  is 
accustomed  to  make  use  of  in  formulas  occur  here, 
like  Kara  which  is  found  here  18  times. 

The  new  epithets  given  to  God  in  these  epistles : 
(Twrrip,  fiaKapio^,  Svvd(TTi]g,  are  taken  from  the  Septuagint. 


258  HISTORY    OF   THE    BOOKS 

The  Coming  of  Christ  is  not  called  -rrapova-ia  but 
€Tri(pav€ia,  this  means  no  more  than  that  St  Paul  did 
not  always  use  the  very  same  word  ;  we  have  already 
noticed  this  in  the  other  epistles :  ^  tjfxepa  tou  Kvplov 
(1  Th.  V.  2  ;  1  Cor.  i.  8,  v.  5,  etc.),  sometimes  he  calls  it 
diroKaXvyf^ig  (2  Th.  i.  7  ;  1  Cor.  i.  7),  or  irapovala  (1  Th.  ii. 
19),  and  eirKpaveia   rf}^  Trapova-ia?  (1  Th.    ii    8,  etc.).       The 

formula  ttio-to?  6  X0709  and  the  words  :  "  Great  is  the 
mystery  of  piety "  before  the  confession  of  faith 
(1  Tim.  iii.  16)  were  formulas  in  use  at  the  time. 

The  similarities  between  these  pastoral  epistles  and 
the  other  epistles  are  as  striking  as  the  differences. 
There  are  612  words  in  common  in  all  of  them. 
There  are  also  38  special  words  that  are  not  found 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  and  of  these,  3 : 
/jtOjO^wcrt?,  vavayeiv,  (rvu'^fjv,  occur  first  in  St  Paul,  for  no 
writer  before  him  makes  use  of  them.    There  are  also 

formulas   in   common  :    euayyeXiou   .    .    .    o   eTna-TeuOtjv   ey<a 

(1  Tim.  i.  11  ;  Titus  i.  3  =  Gal.  ii.  7 ;  1  Thess.  ii.  4); 

Svvaro^  6  0eo9  2  (Tim.  i.  12  =  Rom.  xi.  23)  ;  Kar  eiriTayw 
(1  Tim.  i.  1  =  Rom.  xvi.  26)  ;  -TrapeSwKa  tw  'Zaram  (1  Tim. 
i.  20  =  1  Cor.  V.  5). 

Ideas  are  often  in  common  also,  and  are  expressed 
in  almost  identical  words,  yet  there  is  enough  dif- 
ference to  denote  originality  in  the  writer.  For  a 
forger  would  have  copied  more  literally.  Compare 
1  Tim.  ii.  11,12  =  1  Cor.  34 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  13  =  1  Cor.  xi. 
8,  9;  2  Tim.  1,  3,  4  =  Rom.  i.  8,  11  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  5  = 

I  Cor.  ix.  24 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  11  =  1  Cor.  ix.  7 ;  2  Tim.  ii. 

II  =  Rom.  vi.  8 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  20  =  Rom.  ix.  21  ;  2  Tim. 
iii.  2-4  =  Rom.  i.  29-31 ;  Titus  i.  1-4  =  Rom.  i.  1-6,  etc. 

In  1  Tim.  alone  42  passages  may  be  found  that 
have  their  parallels  in  other  epistles  of  St  Paul ;  the 
marginal  references  give  a  much  greater  number,  but 
many  are  only  vague  resemblances. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         259 

Differences  of  style. — The  pastoral  epistles  have  not 
the  vigour  or  force  or  vivacity  or  impetuosity  or  life 
and  variety  or  the  asperity  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  or  Galatians.  The  style  is  heavy,  slow, 
monotonous,  diffuse,  disconnected,  in  places  it  is  dull 
and  colourless ;  it  is  less  broken  up,  more  simple  and 
smooth,  and  easier  to  understand  than  that  of  the 
other  epistles. 

The  object  and  character  of  the  epistles  account  for 
this  difference :  they  were  not  contentious,  they  were 
composed  of  moral,  ecclesiastical  and  personal  advice 
from  a  father  to  a  son.  In  similar  circumstances 
he  wrote  in  the  same  style,  as  one  may  see  (Rom.  xv. 
xvi.  or  Eph.  v.  vi.). 

While  we  recognise  that  there  is  this  difference,  we 
may  still  see  the  stamp  of  St  Paul  upon  these  epistles. 
We  see  here  sentences  within  sentences  rather 
clumsily  joined  together,  frequent  anacoluthons  and 
parentheses  (2  Tim.  iii.  2-5),  enumerations,  repetitions, 
plays  upon  words  (1  Tim.  i.  9-10,  vi.  5,  6 ;  2  Tim.  ii. 
9,  iii.  4,  17).  Compare  the  first  verses  of  1  Tim.  with 
Rom.  i.  28-32  or  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10  or  Gal.  ii.  6.  The 
first  sentence  is  never  finished,  unless  you  suppose  it 
to  be  finished  in  verse  18  and  that  what  goes  before  is 
all  one  long  parenthesis,  the  propositions  are  con- 
nected only  by  the  last  word  of  one  being  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next,  and  every  thought  that  comes  up 
draws  the  writer  away  from  his  principal  idea.  All 
that  is  thoroughly  pauline. 

The  writer  of  the  pastoral  epistles  is  fond  like  St 
Paul  of  rectifying  his  words  in  order  to  make  the 
meaning  quite  clear :  "  I  labour  unto  bonds  as  an 
evil-doer  .  .  .  but  the  word  of  God  is  not  bound " 
(2  Tim.  ii.  9),  which  is  analogous  to  1  Cor.  ix.  21  : 
"  I  have  been  without  law  to  those  who  were  without 


260  HISTORY    OF    THE    BOOKS 

the  law  .  .  .  though  I  am  not  without  the  law  of 
God"  {cf.  ib.  XV.  10).  Many  evidently  pauline  passages 
might  be  quoted,  one  will  suffice :  "  Be  not  thou 
therefore  ashamed  of  the  testimony  of  Our  Lord 
or  of  me  his  prisoner,  but  labour  with  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  power  of  God  who  hath  delivered 
us  and  called  us  by  his  holy  calling  not  according 
to  our  works  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and 
grace  which  was  given  to  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before 
the  times  of  the  world,  but  is  now  made  manifest  by 
the  illumination  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  who 
hath  destroyed  death  and  hath  brought  to  light  life 
and  incorruption  in  the  Gospel"  (2  Tim.  i.  8-10). 
Every  attentive  reader  of  the  pauline  epistles  will 
recognise  in  this  the  pauline  style,  with  its  special 
structure,  and  its  stringing  together  of  incidental 
sentences,  no  account  being  taken  of  the  principal 
sentence. 

In  short,  there  are  differences  of  vocabulary  and 
of  style  that  cannot  be  denied,  but  as  a  whole  the 
pastoral  epistles  do  not  differ  from  the  others. 

Doctrines  of  the  pastoral  epistles. — We  find  here 
the  principal  doctrines  of  St  Paul,  and  those  that 
are  special  to  these  epistles  are  not  opposed  to  those 
of  St  Paul ;  nor  are  the  false  doctrines  referred  to 
here  posterior  to  his  time. 

And  first,  the  doctrines  of  these  pastoral  epistles 
are  found  in  the  other  epistles.  All  men  are  sinners, 
and  the  list  of  sins  is  given  (1  Tim.  i.  9,  10 ;  Titus  iii. 
3  ;  (Rom.  i.  29-32),  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  sinners 
(Titus  iii.  3 ;  1  Tim.  i.  7) ;  this  universality  of  sin  is 
the  basis  of  St  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  and  is 
demonstrated  with  great  vigour  in  the  first  chapters 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  Then  on  account  of 
a  plan  (2  Tim.  i.  3 ;  Rom.  viii.  28-30)  God  wishes  all 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         261 

men  to  be  saved,  this  plan  was  first  concealed  (Eph. 
iii.  9)  and  then  revealed  (2  Tim.  i.  10  ;  Titus  ii.  11,  iii.  4) 
by  Christ  who  is  God  (1  Tim  iii.  16),  appeared  in  the 
flesh  {ih.  Philip,  ii.  7),  He  is  Man  (1  Tim.  ii.  5  ;  Rom.  v. 
15),  the  only  Mediator  (1  Tim.  ii.  5 ;  Gal.  iii.  19,  20). 
Justification  comes  not  from  works  (2  Tim.  i.  9),  but 
from  faith  (1  Tim  i.  14,  16,  19 ;  Rom.  iv.  5 ;  Eph.  ii. 
8,  etc.). 

Yet  St  Paul  exhorts  his  readers  here  as  in  the 
other  epistles  to  perform  good  works  as  a  manifesta- 
tion of  a  good  life  (1  Tim.  vi.  18 ;  Titus  iii.  14 ;  Gal. 
V.  22  ;  Eph.  v.  9  ;  2  Cor.  ix.  8  ;  Rom.  ii.  7).  These 
references  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  we  find  in  the 
pastoral  epistles  the  doctrines  that  are  characteristic 
of  St  Paul. 

Holtzman  attempts  to  show  that  there  is  some 
opposition  between  the  doctrine  of  the  pastorals  and 
that  of  the  other  epistles :  he  says  that  tt/o-t*?  faith 
and  SiKaiocrvvt]  pistice  are  not  used  here  in  the  pauline 
sense,  that  faith  is  here  an  intellectual  act  whereas 
in  St  Paul  it  is  an  act  of  the  will  (Rom.  i.  16).  He 
is  quite  right  as  to  the  meaning  of  -maTevo)  and  tt/o-t/? 
in  places  in  St  Paul,  but  the  intellectual  meaning 
is  very  often  to  be  found  in  the  other  epistles  also, 
as  in  Rom.  vi.  17  where  he  speaks  of  the  model  of 
faith,  or  xii.  7  where  he  speaks  of  the  analogy  of 
faith.  Holtzman  maintains  that  justice  in  these 
epistles  is  a  virtue  or  moral  state  and  not  a  relation 
of  man  to  God,  as  St  Paul  teaches  in  the  other 
epistles.  But  in  2  Cor.  ix.  10  he  uses  justice  in  that 
very  sense  of  a  virtue,  for  he  speaks  of  its  fruit 
increasing. 

Lastly  the  Gospel  is  represented  here  as  a  doctrine 
from  God,  preached  by  His  messengers,  it  is  the 
sound  doctrine,  the  form  of  sound  words  (2  Tim.  i.  13). 


262  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

The  Gospel  is  therefore  a  body  of  doctrines,  opposed 
to  false  doctrines.  It  would  take  too  long  to  quote 
all  the  texts  in  which  this  view  is  put  forward.  But 
let  us  admit  that  the  terms  and  expressions  in  which 
this  view  is  given  are  for  the  most  part  new  in  the 
New  Testament,  that  St  Paul  does  not  always  re- 
present the  Gospel  in  this  light  in  the  other  epistles. 
That  does  not  weaken  the  argument  in  favour  of  these 
epistles  being  truly  pauline.  Because  St  Paul  does 
elsewhere  call  his  Gospel  a  type  of  doctrine  tl'tto? 
SiSaxri?  (Rom.  vi.  17),  and  he  lays  it  down  that  the 
doctrine  must  be  preserved  as  he  had  taught  it  (1  Cor. 
XV.  1  ;  Gal.  i.  8 ;  2  Cor.  xi.  4),  he  exhorts  the  Romans 
to  watch  those  who  make  any  change  in  the  doctrine 
(Rom.  xvi.  17).  Therefore  the  pastoral  epistles  con- 
tain only  a  fuller  development  of  this  idea,  and  this 
development  was  made  necessary  by  the  springing 
up  of  the  false  doctrines  of  which  we  will  say  more 
further  on.  But  it  is  development  in  the  same  sense, 
and  not  change. 

A  further  objection  is  that  the  false  doctrines  that 
are  here  condemned  did  not  come  into  existence  in 
the  lifetime  of  St  Paul.  But  opinions  vary  consider- 
ably as  to  the  nature  of  the  heresy  that  is  denounced 
here.  Nearly  all  those  who  oppose  the  pauline  origin 
of  these  epistles  say  that  the  heresy  is  gnosticism ; 
some  venture  to  mention  the  particular  sect :  Mar- 
cionites  and  Valentinians  (Baur),  Ophites  (Lipsius 
and  Schenkel),  Marcosians  (Hilgenfeld),  Cerinthians 
(Mayerhoff) ;  others  see  here  gnosticism  in  its  very 
beginning  before  it  split  up  into  sects  (Holtzman). 
According  to  Michailis  and  Mangold  these  heretics 
are  christianised  Essenians,  for  Reuss  and  Neander 
they  are  judaising  gnostics,  for  Wiesel  they  are 
judaising  pythagoreans,  for  Otto  and  Diihne  they  are 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         263 

philonian  Jews,  for  Grotius,  Herder  and  Baumgarten 
they  are  cabbalist  Jews. 

It  would  take  too  long  to  discuss  all  these  opinions 
in  detail.  But  we  will  endeavour  to  show  that  the 
false  doctrines  denounced  here  were  contained  in 
germ  in  contemporary  speculation,  and  were  alluded 
to  in  other  pauline  epistles.  We  will  show  that 
analogous  doctrines  were  in  vogue  among  the  Jews 
of  that  time,  that  they  had  not  the  characteristics  of 
the  gnosticism  that  prevailed  in  the  second  century  ; 
and  that  will  be  our  answer  to  this  objection. 

A  general  statement  is  not  difficult  to  give  of  the 
errors  stigmatised  in  the  pastoral  epistles,  for  though 
each  epistle  adds  some  special  trait,  still  the  main 
points  are  the  same  in  all  three.  And  we  must  not 
leave  out  the  men  who  were  to  teach  in  the  last  days 
(1  Tim.  iv.  1 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  1),  we  must  bring  in  their 
errors  too,  because  St  Paul  supposes  them  to  be 
already  in  existence,  since  he  says  to  Timothy  (2,  iii. 
1)  "Avoid  those  men." 

These  men  have  made  shipwreck  of  the  faith 
(1  Tim.  i.  19),  are  proud  and  ignorant,  sick  about 
questions  and  strifes  of  words  (1  Tim.  vi.  3),  have 
false  science  yvwcn^  ylrevSwwjuo^  [ib.  vi.  20),  tell  old  wives' 
tales  (1  Tim.  iv.  7)  and  Jewish  fables  (Titus  i.  14), 
deal  in  interminable  genealogies  (1  Tim.  i.  4),  in  dis- 
putes on  the  Law  (Titus  iii.  3),  they  say  that  the 
resurrection  has  taken  place  (2  Tim.  ii.  18),  they  con- 
demn marriage  and  prescribe  abstinence  from  good 
things  {ib.  iv.  3),  they  belong  especially  to  the  circum- 
cision (Titus  i.  10),  they  creep  into  houses  and  lead 
captive  silly  women  laden  with  sins  (2  Tim.  iii.  6). 

In  the  first  century  the  time  was  all  in  favour 
of  the  spreading  of  these  heresies.  Commercial  and 
other  relations  with  the  East  were  frequent,  religious 


264  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

ideas  were  communicated  from  one  part  of  the  world 
to  the  other,  parsist  dualism  became  known  to  the 
Jews,  and  they  were  predisposed  to  accept  it  by  the 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  as  to  angels  and  by 
the  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  food,  it  con- 
tributed to  form  the  doctrines  of  the  Essenians  and 
of  Philo,  it  spread  among  neighbouring  nations  as  we 
saw  in  studying  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians.  It 
would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  Greek  philosophy 
was  predisposed  to  the  influence  of  parsism,  or  that 
about  the  time  when  Christianity  began  to  be 
preached  there  was  a  mixture  of  the  two  which  pro- 
duced Neoplatonism. 

This  syncretism  of  Oriental,  Jewish  and  Christian 
ideas  had  begun  in  St  Paul's  time.  He  opposed  it 
directly  in  his  epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians, 
and  alluded  to  it  in  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians 
and  Romans  (Rom.  xiv.  2,  21 ;  Col.  ii.  16,  23 ;  1  Cor. 
viii.  7,  8 ;  ib.  vii.  3-5 ;  ih.  xv.  12  ;  Col.  ii.  18).  The 
errors  resulting  from  it  were  more  fully  developed  at 
the  time  of  the  pastoral  epistles,  and  that  is  why  we 
see  them  here  more  distinctly. 

Where  shall  we  find  a  definite  origin  of  these 
errors  ?  To  what  does  St  Paul  allude  when  he  men- 
tions interminable  genealogies  and  old  wives'  tales  ? 
Does  he  allude,  as  some  critics  say,  to  second-century 
gnosticism  with  its  interminable  generations  of  eons, 
tetrads,  ogdoads  and  syzygies  that  make  up  the 
pleroma  ?  The  text  does  not  support  that  hypothesis. 
Gnosticism  grew  out  of  the  contact  of  Greek  philo- 
sophy and  Christianity.  Therefore  we  must  look  to 
Jewish  speculations,  for  that  is  the  source  that  is 
clearly  indicated  in  Titus  i.  14  where  St  Paul  exhorts 
him  to  give  "  no  heed  to  Jewish  fables  and  command- 
ments of  men." 


OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT  265 

These  quarrels  and  disputes  about  the  law,  these 
controversies,  uvnOearei^  or  oppositions  of  ideas  remind 
one  of  the  discussions  in  the  rabbinical  schools :  a 
question  was  asked  concerning  some  point  of  the  law, 
and  then  began  an  endless  discussion  in  which  the 
opinions  for  and  against  were  quoted  from  ancient 
authors.  Nothing  is  more  tiresome  than  to  read  in 
the  Mischna  those  enumerations  without  end  of 
opinions  bearing  more  or  less  upon  the  question. 

The  myths  and  genealogies  spoken  of  in  the  pas- 
toral epistles  are  probably  the  numerous  legends  that 
were  formed  around  Genesis  and  the  genealogies  of 
the  Patriarchs.  We  have  these  legends  in  detail  in 
the  Book  of  Jubilees  and  in  the  Assumption  of  Moses 
where  an  account  is  given  of  the  struggle  of  Michael 
the  Archangel  with  Satan  for  the  body  of  Moses,  and 
in  the  book  of  Biblical  Antiquities  of  the  pseudo 
Philo. 

From  the  last-mentioned  book  we  give  one  speci- 
men which  will,  we  think,  be  sufficient :  "  Adam 
begat  three  sons  and  one  daughter :  Cain,  Noabas, 
Abel  and  Seth.  And  Adam  lived  700  years  after 
begetting  Seth  and  begat  twelve  sons  ^lissel,  Suris, 
iElamiel,  Brabal,  Naab,  Harama,  Zasam,  Maathal 
and  Anath  and  eight  daughters :  Phna,  Tectas, 
Arctica,  Siphatacia,  Sabaasin  "  and  so  on.  One  can 
understand  St  Paul's  calling  this  interminable  genea- 
logies and  old  wives'  tales. 

The  prohibition  of  certain  articles  of  food  is  Jewish, 
and  so  is  the  esoteric  character  of  those  doctrines  and 
the  wish  for  separation  from  the  rest  of  men.  St 
Paul  opposed  this  when  he  ordered  prayers  to  be  said 
for  all  men,  and  declared  that  God  wished  all  men  to 
be  saved  (1  Tim.  ii.  4).  As  for  the  prohibition  of 
marriage  which  is  opposed  to  Jewish  notions,  it  is 


266  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

oriental  and  not  Essenian.  It  is  a  mistake  to  ex- 
aggerate the  influence  of  the  Essenes  on  the  heretics 
of  the  pastoral  epistles.  These  heretics  love  money 
(1  Tim.  vi.  10),  their  mind  and  conscience  are  defiled 
(Titus  i.  15),  and  they  lead  captive  silly  women ; 
whereas  the  Essenes  practised  community  of  goods, 
were  chaste,  and  avoided  intercourse  with  women. 
Therefore  the  heretics  of  these  epistles  were  Jewish 
Christians  who  to  their  national  customs  added  some 
foreign  practices. 

Consequently  it  is  useless  to  seek  in  the  second 
century  gnostic  speculations  for  points  of  resemblance 
with  these  heresies.  In  fact  it  is  impossible  that  they 
should  be  the  origin  of  these  heresies,  because  most 
of  the  gnostics  especially  the  Marcionites  and  Valen- 
tinians  were  adversaries  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of 
the  Law,  so  that  they  cannot  have  pretended  to  be 
doctors  of  the  Law  (1  Tim.  1.  7),  Marcion  never  dis- 
cussed the  Law,  he  rejected  it  altogether.  Genea- 
logies is  a  term  unknown  among  the  gnostics,  their 
terms  are  eons,  etc.,  as  given  above,  and  those  are  the 
terms  that  the  author  would  have  used  if  he  had 
referred  to  gnostic  errors.  It  would  be  astonishing 
if  the  author,  living  in  the  second  century  when 
gnosticism  was  fully  developed,  could  find  no  better 
words  to  describe  it  than  the  vague  and  indefinite 
ones  that  we  see  in  these  epistles.  Nor  would  he 
have  called  the  disputes  vain  and  idle  (Titus  iii.  9)  for 
they  were  a  serious  menace  to  Christianity. 

We  shall  recognise  in  these  epistles  some  of  the 
terms  and  some  of  the  features  of  the  gnostic  systems 
of  the  second  century.  That  is  explained  by  the  fact 
that  these  heresies,  of  which  we  have  seen  the  germ 
in  the  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Colossians,  were 
more  developed  at  the  time  of  the  pastoral  epistles. 


OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT         267 

more  developed  still  at  the  time  of  the  epistles  of 
Ignatius  of  Antioch,  and  reached  their  full  develop- 
ment in  gnosticism  under  the  influence  of  Greek 
philosophy ;  so  that  gnosticism  is  the  end  and  not 
the  beginning  of  these  heresies. 

The  reader  may  be  astonished  to  see  that  we  attri- 
bute to  Jews  errors  that  may  be  described  as  pre- 
gnostic.  But  there  are  Jewish  writings  of  the  first 
century  that  teach  the  errors  that  were  fundamental 
in  gnosticism  :  abrogation  of  the  ceremonial  law,  God 
inferior,  creator  of  the  visible  world  (Friedlander 
vorchrist.  jiid.  Gnosticismus). 

Co7icept  of  the  Church. — The  church  of  the  living 
God,  the  column  and  support  of  truth  (1  Tim.  iii.  15  ; 
1  Cor.  XV.  9)  is  founded  on  and  by  God  Oe/meXiog  OeoO 
(2  Tim.  ii.  19),  is  the  house  of  God  (1  Tim.  iii.  15),  He 
is  the  Lord  of  it  (2  Tim.  ii.  21),  and  the  ministers  are 
the  stewards  (Titus  i.  7).  Therefore  the  Church  is  not 
only  a  particular  community,  it  is  the  union  of  all 
such  communities,  an  ideal  society ;  from  the  Church 
in  the  concrete  we  have  passed  to  the  Church  in 
the  abstract,  to  the  universal  Church.  In  the  epistles 
of  St  Paul  the  word  'E/c/cXi/o-m  stands  for  a  particular 
community  (Rom.  xvi.  1  ;  1  Cor.  i.  2 ;  2  Cor.  i.  1), 
altogether  eleven  times.  That  is  indeed  the  first 
meaning  that  he  gave  to  the  word,  but  his  general- 
ising mind  soon  rose  to  the  abstract  meaning  of  a 
universal  society  in  which  Christ  is  the  head  and  we 
the  members  (Eph.  i.  22,  v.  30 ;  Col.  i.  18-24),  she  is 
the  spouse  of  Christ  without  spot  or  wrinkle  (Eph.  v. 
25-27).  As  in  the  pastoral  epistles  she  is  called  the 
Church  of  God  (1  Cor.  x.  32,  xi.  22)  nine  times  does 
that  name  occur  ;  she  is  the  field,  the  building  of  God 
(1  Cor.  iii.  9,  10). 

Ecclesiastical  Orga^iisation. — These  epistles  mention 


268  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

four  classes  of  persons  as  being  in  some  way  or  other 
employed  in  the  church  :  ( 1 )  eiria-KOTro^  and  irpea^vrepo^^ 

(2)  evayye\i(TTn<i,  (3)  ^ta/covo?,  (4)  widowS  X^P^'- 

The  words  episcopos  and  presbijferos  seem  in  the 
pastoral  epistles  to  designate  the  same  person  and  the 
same  function.  The  same  qualities  are  required  for 
episcopoi  andi  preshyteroi  (1  Tim.  iii.  1-6  and  Titus  i. 
5-7).  The  same  persons  have  the  two  names  applied 
to  them ;  "  Ordain  preshyter^oi  in  every  city  .  .  .  for 
an  episcopos  must  be  without  crime "  (Titus  i.  5-7). 
The  preshytcroi  in  1  Tim.  v.  17  were  episcopoi  because 
they  presided  irpoeaTMre^.  The  ministers  of  the  Church 
are  the  episcopoi  and  diacojioi,  or  preshyteroi  and 
diaconoi ;  the  episcopoi  and  preshyteroi  are  never 
mentioned  together  as  distinct.  They  were  appointed 
to  office  by  the  imposition  of  hands  (1  Tim.  iv.  14  ; 
2  Tim.  i.  6)  and  established  by  the  delegate  of  the 
Apostle  (Titus  i.  5),  they  had  to  be  capable  of  teaching 
SiSaKTiKo?  (1  Tim.  iii.  2). 

We  must  notice  however  that  episcojws  is  always 
in  the  singular  and  p)resbytcroi  in  the  plural.  This 
distinction  may  mean  that  among  the  preshyteroi 
there  was  one  who  was  called  episcopos  and  had  a 
special  office. 

This  state  of  things  with  regard  to  episcopoi-presby- 
tei'oi  is  exactly  what  we  find  elsewhere  in  the  middle 
of  the  first  century.  St  Paul  makes  no  distinction, 
he  speaks  of  episcopoi  and  diacofioi  (Philip,  i.  1),  and 
he  tells  the  preshyteroi  of  Ephesus  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  has  made  them  episcopoi  (Acts  xx.  17-28).  St 
Peter  (i.  v.  1-5)  bids  the  preshytei^oi  feed  the  flock 
episcopountes.  In  the  earliest  post-apostolic  writings 
these  terms  are  not  differentiated  :  the  Didache  (xv.  1) 
puts  at  the  head  of  the  community  the  episcopoi  and 
diaconoi,  it  knows  nothing  of  p?'esbyteroi ;   Clement 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAINIENT  269 

of  Rome  calls  the  same  persons  episcopoi  (xiii.  4)  and 
presbytei'oi  (xlvii.  6).  At  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  on  the  contrary,  St  Ignatius  of  Antioch 
establishes  very  clearly  the  distinction  of  bishops, 
priests  and  deacons :  the  bishop  presides  in  the  place 
of  God,  the  priest  takes  the  place  of  the  apostolic 
senate,  and  the  deacon  is  entrusted  with  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

2  Tim.  iv.  5,  St  Paul  recommends  his  disciple  to 
do  the  work  of  an  evangelist.  This  is  an  allusion  to 
the  missionaries  mentioned  (Eph.  iv.  11) :  "  God  gave 
some  apostles,  others  prophets,  others  evangelists." 
Philip  the  deacon  is  called  an  evangelist  (Acts  xxi.  8). 
Whether  this  title  indicated  a  particular  function,  or 
was  as  in  the  pastoral  epistles  a  particular  designation 
of  a  more  general  function,  is  not  easy  to  say.  In 
any  case  we  do  not  see  in  the  writings  of  the  apostolic 
Fathers  any  more  than  in  later  writings  that  any 
functionary  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  was  called 
an  evangelist.  In  the  few  texts  that  speak  of 
evangelists  we  must  understand  the  word  to  mean  a 
preacher  of  the  Gospel.     In  the  fourth  century  the 

avayvuxrrtjg   is   sometimes   called   euayye\i(TTi'ig. 

The  qualities  required  in  deacons  are  mentioned 
(1  Tim.  iii.  8-18).  Deacons  are  mentioned  (Philip,  i. 
1),  they  are  represented  (1  Cor.  xii.  28)  as  those  who 
help  dvTiXi'iyjreig.  The  Didache  (xi.  1)  mentions  them. 
In  1  Tim.  iii.  1 1  there  may  be  a  mention  of  deaconesses, 
though  we  cannot  be  certain  that  the  wives  of  the 
deacons  are  not  meant.  In  any  case  we  know  from 
Rom.  xvi.  1  that  there  were  deaconesses  in  the 
primitive  Church. 

Assisted  widows  are  mentioned  (1  Tim.  v.  4),  we 
need  say  nothing  of  them;  widows  on  the  list  are 
mentioned  in  verse  9,  they  had  duties  to  perform. 


270  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

This  is  the  earliest  indication  of  the  ordo  viduarum 
which  is  spoken  of  in  the  Clementine  Recognitions 
(vi.  15),  or  of  the  rayixa  Twv  x^P^^  of  Ps- — Ignatius,  or 
of  the  widows  alluded  to  by  St  Ignatius  in  his  epistle 
(Smyrn.  xiii.  1).  In  the  pastoral  epistles  the  widows 
are  required  to  be  really  widows,  but  not  much  later 
we  find  that  women  set  apart  for  the  service  of  the 
Church  are  called  widows,  St  Ignatius  loc.  cit.  speaks 
of  virgins  who  are  called  widows.  We  can  easily 
understand  the  necessity  of  these  widows  in  the  early 
Church  in  the  East  for  the  evangelising  of  and  caring 
for  women.  That  office  could  not  be  entrusted  to 
men.  The  widows  were  then  a  kind  of  deaconess. 
Very  likely  they  were  sometimes  called  by  one  name 
and  sometimes  by  the  other,  for  many  things  were  in 
those  early  times  unsettled:  fWoi/09  (Rom.  xvi.  1); 
Xnpd  (1  Tim.  v.  9).  And  when  we  see  that  in  the 
second  century  there  was  a  Tayna  rwv  x^P^^  officially 
established,  we  see  no  reason  why  a  church  like  that 
of  Ephesus  which  had  long  been  constituted  and 
hierarchised  should  not  have  had  a  Karakoyo^  or  list  of 
widows.  For  we  must  not  forget  that  the  Greeks, 
as  well  as  the  Romans,  were  fond  of  organisation ; 
and  in  those  small  close  corporations  there  was  a  dis- 
position to  have  the  full  equipment  of  offices. 

Let  us  conclude  therefore  that  neither  as  regards 
the  hierarchy,  nor  as  regards  St  Paul's  idea  of  the 
Church,  is  there  any  difference  between  the  pastoral 
epistles  and  the  other  epistles  of  the  Apostle  or  the 
other  writings  of  his  time. 

Histoiical  circumstances.  —  The  pastoral  epistles 
contain  the  names  of  some  persons  who  are  known : 
Tychicus  (Acts  xx.  4 ;  Eph.  vi.  21  ;  Col.  iv.  7) ; 
Trophimus  (Acts  xx.  4) ;  and  perhaps  Alexander  (Acts 
xix.  33).     And  they  recall  some  facts  mentioned  in 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  271 

the  Acts :  the  imprisonment  of  the  Apostle  (Acts 
xxviii.  30),  what  is  said  of  Timothy's  origin  (Acts 
xvi.  1),  the  persecutions  at  Antioch,  Iconium  and 
Lystra  (Acts  xiii.).  But  the  whole  body  of  the 
events  recorded,  and  the  situation  that  these  epistles 
presuppose  are  outside  of  the  period  covered  by  the 
Acts  and  by  the  pauline  epistles.  We  shall  demon- 
strate this  later  on.  This  is  a  strong  argument  in 
favour  of  the  pauline  origin  of  these  epistles.  A 
forger  would  have  selected  personages  known  to 
everybody,  in  order  to  add  to  the  apparent  authen- 
ticity of  his  work,  whereas  here  the  writer  has  placed 
himself  in  a  historical  situation  of  which  no  one  else 
says  anything. 

Yet  although  the  events  narrated  here  are  not 
known  to  us  from  any  other  source,  not  one  of  them 
tells  against  the  pauline  origin  of  the  epistles,  though 
the  opposite  has  been  held.  Renan's  historical  diffi- 
culties push  these  epistles  out  of  the  period  known  to 
us  by  the  Acts  and  by  the  other  epistles.  We  admit 
them,  for  we  believe  that  these  epistles  do  not  belong 
to  that  period,  consequently  we  need  not  notice  those 
difficulties.  Naturally  we  do  not  admit  that  the 
author  of  the  second  to  Timothy  has  placed  himself  in 
the  position  presupposed  by  the  captivity  narrated  in 
the  Acts,  that  is  the  first  Roman  captivity  to  which 
belong  the  epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  Colossians. 
An  attentive  study  of  the  text  shows  that  an  earlier 
captivity  is  alluded  to :  the  verses  14-17  in  the  fourth 
chapter  speak  in  the  past  tense  of  a  captivity,  but 
verses  9-13  refer  to  the  present :  "  Luke  alone  is  with 
me  "  ;  and  a  comparison  of  verses  6-8  where  Paul  says 
that  he  is  about  to  be  immolated,  with  verse  17  where 
he  says  that  he  has  been  saved  from  the  mouth  of 
the  lion,  proves  that  he  speaks  of  a  twofold  captivity. 


272  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

But  it  is  objected  :  St  Paul  calls  Timothy  a  young 
man  when  he  must  have  been  thirty-five  or  forty 
years  of  age.  We  answer :  Why  not  ?  Timothy  was 
young  for  his  duties,  and  besides  he  was  young  for  St 
Paul  who  had  known  him  as  a  child  and  was  now  an 
old  man.     Everything  here  is  relative  (1  Tim.  iv.  12). 

St  Paul  could  give  the  advice  not  to  choose  neo- 
phytes for  bishops  at  Ephesus  (1  Tim.  iii.  6),  because 
that  church  was  then  at  least  ten  years  old.  He  does 
not  give  that  advice  to  the  church  of  Crete  which  had 
not  been  founded  so  long. 

Is  there  any  contradiction  between  1  Cor.  vii. 
where  he  advises  virgins  not  to  marry,  and  1  Tim.  ii. 
15  where  he  says  that  women  will  be  saved  by  child- 
bearing  ?  The  apparent  antinomy  arises  from  the 
difference  of  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer ;  he  coun- 
selled virginity  because  the  end  of  the  world  was  at 
hand  (vii.  26)  whereas  here  he  treats  of  the  duties  of 
women :  he  will  not  allow  them  to  teach  in  public, 
or  to  rule  their  husbands,  and  so  he  lays  it  down  that 
they  are  to  keep  to  their  position  of  mothers  which 
is  represented  by  the  one  word  child-bearing. 

We  need  not  discuss  the  other  objections,  they  are 
of  no  importance  and  are  easy  to  meet. 

Use  made  of  the  epistles  in  the  Church. — St  Clement 
writing  to  the  Corinthians  has  thoughts  that  may 
have  been  suggested  by  these  epistles.  Cf.  xxix.  1  = 
1  Tim.  ii.  8  ;  ib.  ii.  7  =  Titus  iii.  1.  Compare  also  the 
epistle  of  Barnabas  (v.  6  =  2  Tim.  i.  10  ;  iv.  6  =  2  Tim. 
iii.  6;  v.  10  =  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  xiv.  6  =  Titus  ii.  14). 
Polycarp  of  Smyrna  writing  to  the  Philippians  (iv.) 
speaks  of  the  qualities  of  deacons  in  the  same  terms  as 
1  Tim.  vi.  7.  The  similarities  in  Ignatius  of  Antioch 
are  not  so  great  {cf.  ad.  Magn.  xi.  =  1  Tim.  i.  1 ;  ib. 
viii.  1  =  1  Tim.  iv.  7).     Theophilus  of  Antioch  bids 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         273 

Autolycus  (iii.  14)  to  be  subject  to  the  powers  and  to 
pray  for  them,  because  the  divine  word  commands 
us  to  do  so  (Titus  iii.  1  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  2).  Notice  the  ex- 
pression divine  word.  This  shows  that  a.d.  181  the 
pastoral  epistles  were  quoted  as  the  word  of  God. 

St  Justin  (Dial.  47)  speaks  of  the  love  of  God  for 
men  (Titus  iii.  4.)  St  Ireneus  {adv.  her.  ii.  14)  and 
Tertullian  {Scorp.  13)  attribute  these  epistles  to  St  Paul 
by  name.  The  Canon  of  Muratori  mentions  one 
epistle  to  Titus  and  two  to  Timothy  which  though 
written  out  of  affection  for  persons  in  place  of  being 
written  to  churches  are  nevertheless  in  honour  in  the 
Catholic  Church  because  they  have  been  canonised 
for  the  regulation  of  ecclesiastical  dicipline.  The 
Peschitto  and  the  ancient  Latin  version  contained 
these  three  epistles.  Tatian  accepted  the  epistle  to 
Titus  but  rejected  both  of  those  to  Timothy,  Marcion 
did  not  admit  them  in  his  canon,  and  Basilides  rejected 
them.  This  is  not  astonishing,  because  their  heresy 
stained  with  gnosticism  was  condemned  by  these 
epistles.  The  fact  of  their  exclusion  is  a  proof  of 
their  existence.  Marcion  rejected  them,  not  because 
they  were  not  pauline,  but  because  like  the  Gospel  of 
St  John  and  other  writings  they  did  not  fit  in  with 
his  system.  Origen  in  Matt.  117  says  that  some 
have  dared  to  reject  the  epistle  to  Timothy,  but  have 
not  been  able. 

Eusebius  {Hist.  eccl.  iii.  3,  5)  says  that  there  are 
fourteen  epistles  undisputed,  which  means  accepted 
by  everybody,  he  mentions  2  Tim.  twice  (ii.  22,  iii.  2.) 
The  few  writings  that  we  have  of  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century  show  that  these  epistles  were 
known  to  some  writers  of  that  period.  And  at  the 
end  of  the  second  century  we  find  them  quoted  by 
name  and  held  as  canonical. 


274  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

Our  general  conclusion  is  that  these  epistles  are 
the  work  of  St  Paul.  We  have  now  to  see  at  what 
period  of  his  life  he  wrote  them.  Various  hypotheses 
have  been  put  forward  on  this  question,  we  will  explain 
them  and  discuss  them  later  on.  At  present  let  us 
establish  the  facts.  Let  us  see  to  whom,  on  what 
occasion,  for  what  purpose  they  were  written,  and 
what  their  contents  are.  By  the  light  of  these  facts 
we  shall  be  able  to  determine  the  date. 

The  first  to  Timothy  and  the  one  to  Titus  must 
have  been  written  about  the  same  time,  they  are  so 
closely  connected  in  their  contents  and  in  style. 
The  second  to  Timothy  was  written  a  little  later. 
In  order  not  to  separate  the  two  to  Timothy,  we 
will  take  the  epistle  to  Titus  first. 


2.    OCCASION,    ETC.,    OF    THE    EPISTLE    TO    TITUS 

Titus  was  born  of  pagan  parents,  he  was  Greek 
(Gal.  ii.  3),  was  made  a  Christian  by  St  Paul  who 
calls  him  his  true  son  in  the  faith  (Titus  i.  4).  Before 
long  he  is  St  Paul's  brother  (2  Cor.  ii.  13),  his  com- 
panion and  helper  {ib.  viii.  23).  He  accompanied  St 
Paul  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem  when  the  question 
as  to  the  keeping  the  Law  of  Moses  had  to  be 
decided  (Gal.  ii.  1),  and  was  not  obliged  to  submit 
to  circumcision  {ib,  3).  We  find  Titus  again  at 
Ephesus  during  the  Apostle's  third  missionary 
journey,  he  is  sent  from  there  to  Corinth,  he  rejoins 
the  Apostle  in  Macedonia  (2  Cor.  vi.  6),  is  sent  from 
there  to  Corinth  bearing  the  second  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  {ib.  xii.  18)  and  is  charged  with  the  duty 
of  collecting  money  in  Corinth  for  the  poor  of 
Jerusalem.     After  that  we  lose  sight  of  him,  until 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         275 

we  find  him  again  in  Crete  where  St  Paul  had  left 
him  (Titus  i.  5) ;  as  soon  as  either  Artemas  or 
Tychicus  sent  by  the  Apostle  reaches  Crete,  Titus 
is  to  go  to  him  in  Nicopolis  which  is  a  seaside  town 
on  the  west  of  the  gulf  of  Ambracia  ;  we  gather  that 
he  actually  went,  for  soon  after  we  see  that  he  is  in 
Dalmatia  (2  Tim.  iv.  10). 

It  appears  from  the  epistle  to  Titus  that  St  Paul 
preached  for  a  short  time  in  Crete,  long  enough  how- 
ever to  know  the  character  and  disposition  of  the 
people  (i.  13) ;  when  he  left  the  island,  the  church 
was  not  organised,  and  Titus  was  commissioned  to 
set  things  in  order. 

Probably  Christianity  had  for  some  considerable 
time  been  known  in  Crete,  for  there  were  Cretans 
present  at  the  preaching  of  Peter  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  11),  and  besides  the  island  is  in 
communication  with  Rome,  Palestine,  Greece  and 
Asia  Minor,  so  that  Christian  missionaries  could 
have  access  to  it  easily.  But  Christianity  had  not 
prevailed  against  their  naturally  evil  dispositions. 

Poly  bins,  Ovid,  Livy  and  other  writers  confirm  what 
St  Paul  quotes  from  the  Cretan  poet  Epimenides : 
"always  liars,  evil  beasts"  (i.  12).  They  were  with 
the  Cappadocians  and  Cilicians  the  three  bad  Ka-n-ira 
of  the  Greek  world.  According  to  Suidas  KpririCeiv 
meant :  to  be  a  liar.  There  were  many  Jews  in 
Crete,  and  the  Cretans  in  addition  to  their  own 
national  vices  adopted  some  of  the  defects  of  the 
Jews :  disobedience,  vain  talking  (i.  10).  The  evil 
as  described  in  this  first  chapter  was  great,  and  we 
gather  that  the  labours  of  the  Apostle  had  borne 
no  great  fruit,  because  in  place  of  his  usual  affectionate 
messages  he  ends  this  letter  with  the  very  limited 
salutation  to  "  them  that  love  us  in  the  faith." 


276  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 


3.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  TITUS 

There  is  the  Prologue  (i.  1-4),  and  the  Conclusion 
(iii.  12-15),  and  the  part  between  these  two  may  be 
divided  into  three  since  it  deals  with  three  subjects. 

Rules  for  choosing  presbyters. — It  is  not  necessary 
to  analyse  these,  all  that  is  necessary  is  to  read  them. 
Then  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  show  how  Titus  is  to 
behave  towards  the  teachers  of  false  doctrine,  viz. : 
"  rebuke  them  sharply,"  "  give  no  heed  to  Jewish 
fables,"  etc. 

Exhortations. — Titus  is  told  how  to  address  old 
men,  old  women,  young  women,  and  young  men. 
He  is  himself  to  be  a  model  of  good  works.  Slaves 
are  to  be  obedient. 

More  general  precepts. — Titus  is  to  preach  sub- 
mission to  the  ruling  powers,  gentleness  and  mildness 
towards  all  men ;  he  is  to  avoid  foolish  questions, 
genealogies  and  contentions. 


4.  CIRCUMSTANCES  OF  FIRST  TO  TIMOTHY 

St  Paul  in  his  second  missionary  journey  found  at 
Lystra  a  disciple  named  Timothy,  he  took  him  with 
him  (Acts  xvi.  3)  across  Asia  Minor  and  Macedonia, 
when  he  travelled  from  Thessalonica  to  Athens  he 
left  Timothy  at  Berea  (xvii.  14).  Timothy  rejoined 
Paul  at  Athens  whence  he  returned  to  Thessalonica 
(1  Thess.  iii.  2),  went  later  on  to  Paul  at  Corinth 
(Acts  xviii.  5).  He  was  at  Ephesus  with  the  Apostle 
and  was  sent  from  there  to  Macedonia  with  Erastus 
(xix.  28)  and  to  Corinth  (1  Cor.  iv.  17).  We  cannot 
say  whether  he  had  gone  back  to  Ephesus  or  whether 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         277 

he  found  the  Apostle  in  Macedonia,  but  he  was  with 
Paul  when  the  second  to  the  Corinthians  was  written 
(2  Cor.  i.).  He  went  to  Corinth  with  Paul,  for  he  is 
mentioned  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  (xvi.  21). 
And  he  went  with  Paul  to  Troas  (Acts  xx.  4).  But 
after  that  we  lose  sight  of  him.  We  see  him  neither 
in  Jerusalem  nor  in  Cesarea,  nor  is  he  mentioned 
among  those  who  sailed  with  Paul  to  Italy.  Yet  he 
was  in  Rome  when  Paid  wrote  to  the  Philippians 
(i.  1,  ii.  19;  Col.  i.  1,  and  Philemon  i.).  Probably 
he  had  been  imprisoned,  and  was  at  this  time  set  free 
(Heb.  xiii.  23).  We  know  nothing  of  Timothy  except 
from  these  pastoral  epistles  which  we  are  now  about 
to  examine. 

In  obedience  to  St  Paul  he  left  for  Macedonia,  and 
stopped  at  Ephesus  (i.  3)  to  put  an  end  to  some  false 
teaching.  St  Paul  had  foretold  (Acts  xx.  29)  that 
false  teachers  would  arise,  and  his  prophecy  had  come 
true.  The  evil  had  increased  when  the  first  to 
Timothy  was  written.  Some  of  these  false  teachers 
had  even  resisted  the  Apostle,  and  he  had  handed 
them  over  to  Satan.  Timothy  was  to  take  the  place 
of  the  Apostle  and  establish  order  in  the  church. 

Some  critics,  Belser  amongst  others,  think  that 
Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus  because :  he  had  to 
teach  (i.  3 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  2),  he  directed  public  worship 
(1,  ii.  1),  he  had  power  to  judge  (1,  v.  19),  to  watch 
over  ecclesiastical  discipline  (1,  v.  1),  over  widows 
(1,  V.  1-16),  the  right  to  appoint  bishops  and  deacons 
(1,  iii.  1-10),  in  fact  he  had  supremacy  over  bishops 
since  St  Paul  tells  him  what  qualities  to  require  in 
them. 

These  texts  prove  that  Timothy  had  authority  in 
Ephesus,  but  they  do  not  prove  that  he  was  resident 
bishop  there,  he  may  have  possessed  all  this  authority 


278  HISTORY    OF   THE   BOOKS 

as  delegate  of  the  Apostle.  There  are  texts  that 
favour  the  latter  supposition  :  he  was  left  at  Ephesus 
for  a  definite  purpose  (i.  3),  he  was  to  teach  until  the 
Apostle  came  (iv.  13),  he  was  to  do  the  work  of  an 
evangelist  (ii.  4,  5),  and  finally  St  Paul  recalls  him 
(ii.  4,  9).  The  position  of  Titus  in  Crete  is  the  same, 
he  was  left  there  to  organise,  hut  is  not  left  there 
permanently  since  he  is  sent  for  to  go  to  Nicopolis. 
Both  Timothy  and  Titus  therefore  took  the  place  of 
the  Apostle,  the  one  in  Ephesus  the  other  in  Crete, 
temporarily.  Whether  later  on  they  became  resident 
bishops  of  those  places,  is  a  question  with  which  we 
are  not  here  concerned. 

St  Paul's  object  in  writing  to  Timothy  was  to  warn 
him  against  the  false  doctrine  that  prevailed  at 
Ephesus,  to  give  him  directions  for  the  government  of 
the  church,  and  to  advise  him  how  to  act  with  regard 
to  various  kinds  of  persons.  It  is  easier  to  indicate 
the  general  lines  of  the  epistle  than  to  give  its  logical 
order.  It  must  be  remembered  that  regulations  and 
counsels  cannot  be  planned  out  like  a  thesis. 


5.    ANALYSIS    OF    THE    FIRST    TO    TIMOTHY 

The  prologue  consists  of  the  first  two  verses,  then 
comes  the  body  of  the  letter,  and  in  the  last  verse 
there  is  a  blessing  or  good  wish  by  way  of  termination. 

St  Paul  mentions  the  purpose  of  prenching  (i.  3-20). 
— The  purpose  is  charity.  Those  who  go  astray  from 
this  fall  into  vain  babbling.  St  Paul  thanks  God  for 
putting  him  in  the  ministry.  He  exhorts  Timothy 
to  fight  the  good  fight.  He  denounces  Hymeneus 
and  Alexander. 

Directions  as  to  public  prayers  (ii.  1-15). — He  de- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         279 

sires  prayers  for  all  especially  for  kings,  etc.,  God 
wishes  all  men  to  be  saved,  there  is  only  one  God 
and  one  Mediator.  Men  are  to  pray  in  every  place, 
women  are  to  learn  in  silence. 

Directions  as  to  ministers  (iii.  1-16). — He  that  loves 
the  office  of  eTr/cr/coxo?  lovcs  a  good  work.  Next  St 
Paul  gives  the  qualities  of  bishops  and  deacons,  he 
hopes  to  come  soon,  but  if  he  tarries  long  these  direc- 
tions are  to  be  a  guide  to  Timothy. 

He  foretelh  future  e7^ro7\s  (iv.  1-16). — The  Spirit 
announces  that  in  the  last  days  some  shall  depart 
from  the  faith,  and  forbid  marriage,  etc.  Timothy 
is  to  oppose  those  errors.  No  one  is  to  despise  his 
youth,  he  is  to  be  an  example. 

Rules  of  conduct  (v.  1-vi.  2). — Here  St  Paul  speaks 
of  how  old  men  are  to  be  treated,  and  young  men, 
and  widows,  etc.  He  advises  Timothy  no  longer  to 
drink  water  but  wine,  on  account  of  his  frequent 
infirmities. 

Then  he  denounces  again  those  who  teach  false 
doctrine,  he  calls  again  upon  Timothy  to  fight  the 
good  fight,  and  ends  with  the  wish  :  "  Grace  be  with 
thee.     Amen." 


6.    OBJECT    OF    THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    TO    TIMOTHY 

When  St  Paul  wrote  this  epistle,  he  was  a  prisoner 
(i.  8).  He  was  in  Rome,  for  that  is  where  Onesi- 
phorus  searched  for  him  diligently  and  found  him 
(i.  17).  The  persons  who  salute  Timothy  at  the  end  : 
Pudens,  Linus,  Claudia  bear  Roman  names.  And 
tradition  favours  this  opinion.  Luke  alone  was  with 
Paul,  but  he  was  in  contact  with  the  brethren  in 
Rome  (iv.  21).     He  knew  that  his  task  was  finished, 


280  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

he  was  about  to  die,  he  calls  upon  Timothy  to  come 
quickly  before  the  winter,  to  bring  him  his  cloak  and 
his  books  and  parchments. 

He  gives  Timothy  his  last  instructions,  and  re- 
minds him  that  the  spirit  of  God  is  not  a  spirit  of 
timidity  but  of  strength.  Perhaps  the  disciple  was 
less  disposed  naturally  to  energetic  actions  than  the 
master. 

Timothy  was  probably  at  Ephesus  at  this  time. 
The  mention  of  Trophimus  (iv.  20)  an  Ephesian,  of 
Alexander  another  Ephesian,  of  Priscilla  and  Aquila 
(iv.  19)  who  probably  were  at  Ephesus  would  make 
us  think  so.  Hence  St  Paul  insists  again  on  the 
necessity  of  avoiding  false  doctrine.  And  many 
times  over  he  exhorts  Timothy  to  be  courageous  and 
faithful.  He  writes  as  if  he  was  not  sure  of  seeing 
his  disciple  again. 


7.    ANALYSIS    OF   THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    TO    TIMOTHY 

Prologue. — Paul  the  apostle  to  his  beloved  son 
wishes  grace,  mercy  and  peace. 

Body  of  the  letter. — Let  Timothy  rekindle  the  gift 
of  God  that  is  in  him  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  let 
him  not  be  ashamed  of  the  Gospel  or  of  Paul  the 
prisoner. 

Everybody  in  Asia  has  abandoned  Paul,  Onesi- 
phorus  on  the  contrary  has  sought  him  out  and 
helped  him. 

Timothy  is  to  resist  false  teachers  and  to  protest 
against  disputes  on  words.  He  is  to  avoid  youthful 
desires  and  pursue  Christian  virtues. 

The  Apostle  foretells  future  evils,  and  exhorts 
Timothy  to  remain  firm  and  faithful. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  281 

He  begs  him  to  come  soon,  to  bring  Mark  with 
him  and  the  cloak  and  the  books. 

He  gives  him  news  of  friends,  sends  salutations, 
and  ends  with  :  "  Grace  be  with  ye.     Amen." 


8.    DATE    OF    THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES 

The  historical  information  that  we  find  in  the 
pastoral  epistles  will  enable  us  to  determine  with 
sufficient  probability  at  what  period  in  his  life  they 
were  written.  The  question  is  whether  the  facts 
furnished  by  these  epistles  find  room  in  the  life  of 
the  Apostle  as  it  is  known  to  us  by  the  Acts  and  by 
the  other  epistles  ;  and  whether — the  pastoral  epistles 
not  having  been  written  before  the  end  of  his  im- 
prisonment in  Rome  in  60-62 — we  must  admit  that 
he  was  restored  to  freedom  and  continued  the  work 
of  his  ministry.  Each  epistle  requires  to  be  studied 
by  itself,  and  yet  the  connection  of  the  three  is  so 
great  that  no  hypothesis  can  be  accepted  for  any  one 
of  them  that  would  put  a  great  space  of  time  between 
any  two  of  them. 

First  epistle  to  Timothy.  —  Paul  had  evangelised 
Ephesus  and  had  gone  to  Macedonia.  The  organisa- 
tion of  the  church  was  complete  enough,  but  false 
teachers  preached  a  doctrine  different  from  the 
Apostle's.  That  was  why  Timothy  was  left  in 
Ephesus  to  wait  for  Paul's  return,  and  he  might  have 
to  tarry  before  he  could  return  (i.  3,  iii.  14).  Where 
do  these  facts  find  a  place  in  the  life  of  St  Paul  as  it 
is  known  to  us  ? 

It  was  in  his  third  missionary  journey  that  he 
evangehsed  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  10).  After  more  than 
two  years  he  left  Ephesus  for  Macedonia.     But  before 


282  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

that  he  had  sent  Timothy  and  Erastus  to  Macedonia 
(Acts  xix.  22).  As  however  Paul  remained  some 
time  in  Asia  {ib.),  Timothy  may  have  come  back  to 
Ephesus,  for  (1  Cor.  xvi.  11)  Paul  expects  him  and 
his  brothers.  Was  it  at  this  time  that  this  epistle 
was  written  ? 

Let  us  suppose  that  Timothy  had  returned  and 
that  Paul  had  left  him  at  Ephesus.  Then  this  epistle 
was  written  when  Paul  was  on  his  way  to  Macedonia 
and  Corinth  (2  Cor.  ii.  13;  Acts  xx.  1),  or  else  at 
Corinth  during  the  three  months  that  he  stayed  there 
{lb.  XX.  3).  But  Timothy  was  with  Paul  {ib.  xx.  4) 
and  is  inentioned  as  helping  to  write  the  2  Cor.  (i.  1). 

Besides,  at  this  time  Paul  was  not  thinking  of 
returning  to  Ephesus  (1  Tim.  iii.  14,  iv.  13),  he  was 
on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  and  Rome  (Acts  xix.  21). 
For  this  reason  this  epistle  cannot  have  been  written 
by  St  Paul  after  he  had  left  Miletus,  where  he  saw 
the  elders  of  Ephesus,  and  perhaps  Timothy  was 
among  them.  After  this  he  no  longer  accompanies 
St  Paul. 

There  is  another  hypothesis  that  seems  less  im- 
probable. According  to  the  second  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  it  seems  that  between  the  two  epistles 
Paul  paid  a  visit  to  Corinth.  Timothy  may  have 
remained  at  Ephesus  then,  and  this  epistle  may  have 
been  written  at  that  time.  This  hypothesis  is  based 
upon  the  hypothesis  of  that  visit  to  Corinth  about 
which  we  have  no  certainty.  Besides  that  voyage 
cannot  have  been  intended  to  take  any  very  great 
time,  and  so  would  not  admit  any  necessity  for  a 
letter  of  directions  in  dogma  and  in  administration. 
And  how  could  Paul  six  months  later  tell  the  elders 
of  Ephesus  that  false  teachers  would  rise  up  among 
them  (Acts  xx.  29)  if  he  had  already  in  his  letter  to 


OF   THE   NEW    TESTAMENT  283 

Timothy  (i.  3)  said  that  those  teachers  were  among 
them  ? 

These  hypotheses  would  make  the  first  to  Timothy 
belong  to  about  the  year  57.  We  shall  see  that  the 
second  cannot  have  been  written  before  62.  And  it 
is  difficult  to  believe  that  as  much  as  five  years  elapsed 
between  them,  when  we  remember  how  identical  the 
style  and  the  matter  are  in  both.  Besides,  in  that 
case  it  would  have  been  written  about  the  same  time 
as  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  Galatians  and 
Romans  ;  and  that  we  cannot  admit,  because  St  l^aul's 
style  does  not  vary  within  any  one  period,  whereas 
both  style  and  subject-matter  in  this  epistle  to  Timothy 
differ  considerably  from  those  of  those  other  epistles. 

Epistle  to  Titus. — The  above  applies  also  to  the 
epistles  to  Titus  and  prevents  us  from  believing  that 
it  belongs  to  any  other  period  than  the  one  that  pro- 
duced the  epistles  to  Timothy.  Here  again  various 
hypotheses  have  been  suggested :  Paul  wrote  it  dur- 
ing his  stay  of  two  years  at  Corinth,  or  on  his  way 
from  Corinth  to  Ephesus,  or  during  his  stay  of  three 
years  at  Ephesus.  He  may  have  gone  to  Crete, 
evangelised  it  rapidly,  left  Titus  there,  and  WTitten 
him  this  epistle.  The  first  two  hypotheses  cannot 
be  true,  because  Paul  never  saw  ApoUos  before 
going  to  Ephesus,  yet  in  Titus  iii.  13  he  knows  him 
well.  The  third  is  impossible  for  the  same  reason, 
but  less  evidently  so,  for  Apollos  may  have  returned 
from  Corinth  and  have  been  sent  to  Crete,  though 
at  the  end  of  Paul's  stay  at  Ephesus  Apollos  was 
still  there  with  him  (1  Cor.  xvi.  12),  and  there  was 
question  of  his  going  to  Corinth  but  no  question 
of  his  going  to  Crete.  This  hypothesis  is  rendered 
especially  impossible  by  the  connection  with  the  first 
to  Timothy,  and  if  the  one  cannot  have  been  written 


284  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

during  the  third  missionary  journey,  neither  can  the 
other.  Besides  the  account  in  Acts  xxvii.  7-13  gives 
no  ground  for  supposing  that  Paul  had  ever  set  foot 
in  Crete  or  that  there  were  Christian  communities 
there.  Hence  the  epistle  cannot  have  been  written 
before  the  Roman  captivity  in  the  year  60. 

Second  epistle  to  Timothy. — This  was  written  in 
Rome  by  Paul  a  prisoner.  Was  that  the  imprison- 
ment of  Acts  xxviii.  16-31  about  the  year  60  ?  Reuss, 
Otto  and  others  think  that  it  was  written  at  the 
beginning  of  this  captivity  and  before  the  epistles  to 
Ephesians,  Colossians  and  Philippians.  Paul  appears 
a  first  time  before  the  Emperor,  and  no  one  stands 
by  him  (iv.  11).  Luke  alone  is  with  him.  Timothy 
and  Mark  came  at  his  request  (iv.  10)  and  so  are 
present  when  he  writes  to  the  Colossians  (i.  1,  iv.  10). 
In  this  hypothesis  there  are  several  difficulties.  Paul 
tells  Timothy  that  Erastus  remains  at  Corinth  and 
that  Trophimus  is  ill  at  Miletus  (iv.  10).  Timothy 
would  have  known  both  these  facts,  for  according  to 
this  hypothesis  they  took  place  during  the  third  mis- 
sionary journey  while  Timothy  was  with  St  Paul.  Be- 
sides Demas  who  abandoned  the  Apostle  (iv.  10)  was 
still  in  Rome  when  he  wrote  to  the  Colossians  (iv.  14) ; 
and  Paul  is  abandoned  by  all  his  friends,  which  does 
not  agree  with  the  epistles  of  the  captivity  in  which 
we  see  that  many  friends  are  with  him  :  Aristarchus 
(Col.  iv.  10),  Epaphras  {ib.  12),  Luke  and  Demas  {ib. 
(14),  Tychicus  (Eph.  vi.  21)  who  should  be  at  Ephesus 
(2  Tim.  iv.  12),  all  which  means  that  the  second  to 
Timothy  was  written  after  those  other  epistles,  and 
consequently  at  the  end  of  this  captivity  at  the 
earliest.  But  Paul  writes  to  the  Philippians  that  he 
will  live  to  visit  them  (i.  25,  26),  this  does  not  agree 
with  2  Tim.  iv.  6  where  he  says  that  he  is  soon  to  die. 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT  285 

And  he  speaks  of  a  former  setting  at  liberty  in  iv.  16 
18.  The  answers  by  which  these  difficulties  have 
been  met  are  exegetical  tours  de  fm'ce.  It  is  easier 
to  believe  that  this  epistle  was  not  written  during  this 
captivity  of  the  year  60-G2.  This  leads  us  to  inquire 
whether  St  Paul  was  set  free,  continued  the  work  of 
his  ministry,  and  underwent  a  second  captivity  in 
Rome  which  ended  with  his  death. 

Hypothesis  of  a  second  imprisonment. — Since  the 
pastoral  epistles  cannot  with  any  certainty  find  their 
place  in  the  known  life  of  St  Paul,  we  must  con- 
jecture that  they  were  written  during  a  second  im- 
prisonment. Only  there  are  critics  who  solve  the 
difficulty  by  denying  the  authenticity  of  these  epistles, 
because  Christian  writings  say  nothing  of  a  second 
imprisonment.  Therefore  we  must  prove  that  there 
was  a  second  imprisonment. 

And  first  of  all,  if  his  death  was  the  end  of  his  first 
imprisonment,  how  is  it  that  St  Luke  is  silent  with 
regard  to  it  at  the  end  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ? 
It  would  have  been  the  natural  conclusion.  Besides 
St  Paul  told  the  Philippians  that  he  would  visit  them 
again  (i.  25-28). 

Clement  of  Rome  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  about 
the  year  93-97  reminding  them  (v.  4-7)  of  "the 
examples  of  the  excellent  apostles,  Peter  who  suffisred 
martyrdom,  Paul  who  .  .  .  went  to  the  extremity  of 
the  West  €ir\  to  repij.a  t>7?  ^ua-em  and  then  having  given 
testimony  before  the  magistrates  was  delivered  from 
this  world."  For  Clement  who  was  a  Roman  the 
extremity  of  the  West  was  Spain.  We  take  that 
expression  literally  ;  Reuss,  Schenkel  and  Weiss  take 
it  as  a  figure  of  speech,  as  if  St  Paul  had  been  com- 
pared to  the  sun  which  in  its  course  travels  from  the 
East  to  the  West. 


286  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

The  Canon  of  Muratori  says :  "Acta  autem  omnium 
apostolorum  sub  uno  libro  scripta  sunt.  Lucas,  optima 
Theophile,  comprehendit  quia  sub  presentia  ejus  sin- 
gula gerebantur,  sicut  et  semote  passionem  Petri 
evidenter  declarat  sed  et  profectionem  Pauli  ab  urbe 
ad  Spaniam  proficiscentis."  There  may  be  doubts  as 
to  the  meaning  of  this  text  as  a  whole.  But  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  speaks  of  St  Paul's  going 
from  Rome  to  Spain.  The  tradition  with  regard  to 
this  voyage  cannot  be  said  to  have  originated  in  what 
St  Paul  says  (Rom.  xv.  24),  for  in  Rome  it  must  have 
been  known  whether  he  carried  out  the  plan  or  not. 
It  is  true  that  ecclesiastical  writers,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Actus  Petri  Vercellensis,  are  silent  on  the 
question.  Eusebius  {Hist.  eccL  ii.  2)  mentions  a 
further  preaching  of  Paul's  after  his  captivity  in  the 
Acts,  and  his  second  captivity  in  Rome,  but  says 
nothing  of  a  voyage  to  Spain.  For  our  purpose  how- 
ever the  testimony  of  Eusebius  is  valuable,  since  it 
shows  that  St  Paul's  life  extended  beyond  what  is 
narrated  in  the  Acts  and  the  epistles. 

Whatever  the  date  of  St  Paul's  death  may  be, 
enough  time  is  left  for  the  pastoral  epistles  between 
the  first  and  second  imprisonment.  We  must  leave 
alone  the  question  whether  he  went  to  Spain,  it  is  of 
no  importance  to  us,  and  we  have  no  information 
with  regard  to  it. 

By  means  of  the  pastoral  epistles  we  are  able  to 
reconstruct  the  last  part  of  his  life.  After  being  in 
Spain  he  evangelised  Crete  with  Titus  for  a  com- 
panion, he  did  not  stay  there  long  but  went  on  to 
Asia  Minor  and  Ephesus  leaving  Titus  in  Crete. 
Then  he  went  to  Macedonia  (1  Tim.  i.  3),  and  on  his 
way  or  at  the  end  of  his  journey  he  wrote  to  Timothy 
advising  him  to  remain  at  Ephesus,  and  to  Titus  to 


OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  287 

teach  him  how  to  conduct  his  ministry.  On  his  way 
he  visited  Miletus  (2  Tim.  iv.  20),  Troas  {ib.  iv.  13), 
Corinth  {ib.  iv.  20),  and  we  find  him  in  Rome  in 
prison  (2  Tim.  i.  16,  17),  and  there  he  writes  the 
second  letter  to  Timothy.  He  was  beheaded  in  67 
probably.  It  is  impossible  to  be  quite  certain  of  the 
date. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS 

This  epistle  stands  by  itself  among  the  pauline 
epistles,  and  many  problems  are  connected  with  it,  of 
which  various  critics  offer  various  solutions.  We 
must  state  what  these  problems  are,  give  the  various 
opinions  on  them,  and  say  what  we  know  for  certain 
and  what  is  only  probable. 

1.    EPISTLE    OR   TREATISE 

Some  say  that  it  is  not  an  epistle,  because  it  has 
no  heading,  no  signature,  no  address  such  as  we 
invariably  find  in  the  epistles  of  St  Paul,  no  thanks- 
givings, no  prayers,  no  indication  of  the  subject  of 
the  letter,  no  token  of  the  occasion  why  it  was 
written,  and  no  sign  of  the  relations  between  the 
writer  and  the  reader  such  as  St  Paul  always  gives. 
At  the  end  (xiii.  23)  there  are  a  few  lines  of  saluta- 
tions and  personal  details.  But  Overbeck  and  Lipsius 
say  that  these  are  a  late  addition.  Besides  the  plan  of 
the  document  is  clear,  and  the  development  is  regular, 
the  arguments  are  strictly  logically  connected,  and 
the  style  is  too  literary  for  a  letter.  Many  critics 
such  as  Reuss,  Baur,  Schwegler,  Ewald,  Hofman 
have  therefore  concluded  that  it  was  not  a  letter 
written  to  definite  readers  but  "  in  chronological  order 
the  first  systematic  treatise  of  Christian  theology." 

An  examination  of  the  epistle  does  not  support  this 


BOOKS   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT      289 

hypothesis.  In  several  places  the  writer  evidently 
speaks  to  definite  persons :  he  asks  them  to  take  in 
good  part  what  he  says  (xiii.  22),  he  tells  them  that 
Timothy  is  set  free  and  will  go  to  see  them.  And 
there  is  no  reason  for  declaring  these  details  to  be 
spurious,  except  that  a  certain  hypothesis  finds  them 
inconvenient.  It  is  impossible  to  maintain  that  the 
writer  did  not  know  the  persons  to  whom  he  wrote, 
for  he  mentions  their  defects  (v.  11),  he  knows  what 
they  are  and  what  they  should  be  (v.  12),  he  reminds 
them  of  their  early  struggles  (x.  32),  of  their  com- 
passion for  prisoners,  of  how  they  surrendered  their 
goods  (x.  34),  he  promises  them  a  better  future 
(vi.  9,  10).  The  literary  form  does  not  prove  it  not 
to  be  a  letter,  for  then  the  epistle  to  the  Romans 
would  not  be  a  letter,  since  its  plan  is  as  clear  and 
its  logic  as  close  as  that  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
if  not  closer.  In  reality  it  was  written  to  the  brethren 
in  some  definite  church  to  whom  the  writer  wished  to 
send  a  message  of  exhortation  (xiii.  22). 


2.    TO    WHOM    WAS    IT    WRITTEN  ? 

The  nationality  of  the  readers  is  not  indicated  in 
any  part  of  the  letter.  The  most  ancient  MSS. 
Sinaiticus,  Vaticanus,  Alexandrinus,  and  the  versions 
have  at  the  beginning  the  address :  -wpo^  E^paioug 
and  are  the  witnesses  of  the  tradition  which  exists  to 
this  day  and  is  justified  by  the  study  of  the  epistle 
itself. 

The  writer's  purpose  is  to  show  the  superiority  of 
the  New  over  the  Ancient  Covenant  in  order  that 
the  readers  may  "remain  steadfastly  attached  to 
the  profession  of  their  hope"   (x.   23).     This  proof 


290  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

might  have  been  put  before  Christians  who  had 
once  been  Pagans  and  who  were  inclined  to  adopt 
Jewish  beliefs  or  legal  observances  like  the  Galatians, 
nevertheless  the  whole  train  of  reasoning  supposes 
rather  that  these  Christians  are  Jews.  "  After 
having  spoken  in  former  times  to  our  fathers  by  the 
prophets"  (i.  1),  the  Son  comes  to  help  the  posterity 
of  Abraham  (ii.  16),  it  is  always  of  the  Jews  never  of 
the  Gentiles  that  the  writer  speaks.  Only  Christian 
Jews  could  understand  the  allusion  to  rules  relating 
to  food  and  ablutions  (x.  10),  or  to  purification  by 
the  blood  of  animals  (ix.  13).  The  whole  reasoning 
is  based  upon  the  Old  Testament.  There  are  twenty- 
nine  direct  or  lateral  quotations  and  forty-seven  re- 
miniscences of  biblical  writings.  The  typology  had 
no  analogy  except  in  the  teaching  of  Jewish  doctors. 

Nevertheless  certain  critics  like  Schiirer,  Weiz- 
sacker,  Pfleiderer,  von  Soden  think  that  the  readers 
were  converted  pagans.  Voluntary  sins  (x.  26), 
hardening  by  the  seduction  of  sin  (iii.  13),  the  bonds 
of  sin  (iii.  1),  were  subjects  that  appealed  to  converts 
from  Paganism  rather  than  to  converts  from  Judaism. 
And  the  elementary  doctrine  as  to  Christ,  faith  in 
God,  baptism,  resurrection,  last  judgment  were  more 
suitable  to  Pagan  hearers.  So  also  the  exhortation  to 
serve  the  living  God  (ix.  14)  was  not  meant  for  Jews. 

These  remarks  are  true  enough,  but  they  cannot 
prevail  against  the  general  impression  produced  by 
the  text,  and  that  is  that  Christian  Jews  are  being 
addressed.  The  elementary  teaching  was  originally 
the  substance  of  all  apostolic  preaching,  no  matter 
what  race  the  hearers  belonged  to ;  and  the  expres- 
sion :  living  God  was  taken  from  the  Old  Testament 
and  had  passed  into  use  on  solemn  occasions,  witness 
Caipha's  adjuration  to  our  Lord  (Matt.  xxvi.  63). 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         291 

Harnack  thinks  that  for  the  writer  there  was  no 
longer  any  distinction  between  Jewish  and  Pagan 
Christians.  All  the  passages  that  are  supposed  to  be 
addressed  to  one  kind  of  Christian  apply  to  the  other 
kind.  We  agree  that  this  is  true  in  many  cases  but 
not  in  all.  We  maintain  that  the  epistle  was  written 
to  Jewish  converts. 

The  writer  seems  (v.  ii.  x.  22)  to  know  his  readers 
personally.  Corinth,  Thessalonica,  Antioch,  Galatia 
have  been  mentioned  as  the  places  where  these  Jewish 
Christians  may  have  lived ;  but  we  consider  that 
Rome,  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem  are  the  only  places 
whose  claims  in  this  connection  are  worth  discussing. 

Wettstein,  Holtzman,  Mangold,  Schenkel,  von 
Soden,  Zahn,  Alford,  Bruce,  Renan  and  Reville  think 
that  this  epistle  was  written  to  the  Jewish  Christians 
of  Rome.  Some  special  information  concerning  it 
was  known  in  Rome,  since  Eusebius  tells  us  that 
Rome  refused  to  look  upon  it  as  pauline.  Clement 
of  Rome  drew  inspiration  from  it.  The  "  great  com- 
bat in  the  midst  of  sufferings  "  (x.  32)  and  the  "  de- 
spoiling of  goods  "  (34)  would  apply  to  the  expulsion 
under  Claudius,  and  the  allusions  to  imminent  perse- 
cutions (x.  25  ;  xii.  4,  26  ;  xiii.  13),  would  refer  to 
the  future  persecution  under  Nero  ;  finally,  salutations 
are  sent  from  those  who  are  uiro  rtjg  'IraXta?  (xiii.  24) 
which  may  refer  to  men  who  have  left  Italy,  or  if  utto 
stands  ef,  it  would  mean  those  who  are  in  Italy  and 
would  show  that  the  epistle  was  written  in  that 
country. 

These  arguments  have  some  weight.  On  the  other 
hand  how  could  anyone  writing  to  the  Romans  say 
that  they  were  slow  to  understand  (v.  11)?  We 
cannot  forget  that  St  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Romans 
was  meant   for   readers  of  considerable   intellectual 


292  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

power,  especially  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  it  speaks 
of  their  faith  as  being  known  in  the  whole  world 
(Rom.  i.  8).  The  allusions  to  sufferings  might  apply 
anywTiere.  Finally  this  letter  was  meant  for  none 
but  Jews,  it  contains  not  even  an  allusion  to  the 
Gentiles  ;  but  in  Rome  the  majority  of  Christians 
were  of  Gentile  origin. 

Milligan  (Theol.  of  Ep.  to  Hebrews)  by  way  of 
answers  to  the  above  supposes  that  this  epistle  was 
addressed  to  a  Christian  community  in  Rome  consist- 
ing of  the  Jewish  hearers  mentioned  in  the  Acts  who 
on  their  return  to  their  homes  in  Rome  formed  them- 
selves into  a  society,  but  being  isolated  were  deficient 
in  doctrinal  knowledge.  This  is  an  attractive  hypo- 
thesis, but  it  is  gratuitous,  there  is  no  text  in  support 
of  it. 

Zahn  and  Harnack  say  that  this  epistle  was  written 
to  one  of  the  small  Christian  communities  of  Rome. 
There  undoubtedly  did  exist  such  communities, 
there  was  one  in  the  house  of  Priscilla  and  Aquila 
(Rom.  xvi.  5)  and  others  are  mentioned  in  verses 
14,  15.  In  this  way  we  see  the  meaning  of  the 
exhortation  not  to  desert  their  assemblies  (x.  25),  that 
is  not  to  go  to  some  other  assembly ;  this  exhortation 
would  not  in  that  case  refer  to  a  return  to  the  worship 
of  the  synagogue.  All  these  hypothesis  meet  some 
of  the  difficulties,  but  not  one  meets  all  of  them. 

Schmidt,  Hilgenfeld,  Volkmar,  Davidson,  Ritschl 
and  Wieseler  say  that  this  epistle  was  written  to 
the  Judeo-Christians  of  Alexandria.  These  were 
numerous  and  influential  from  the  very  beginning, 
especially  in  matters  of  doctrine.  This  epistle  mirrors 
their  ideas,  tendencies,  and  method  of  interpreting 
Scripture.  No  Jews  but  those  of  Alexandria  could 
understand    the    typology    of    this    epistle    or    the 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         293 

spiritualising  of  the  legal  worship.  The  quotations 
come  nearer  to  the  Alexandrine  codex  of  the  Septua- 
gint  than  to  any  other  MSS.  Expressions  peculiar 
to  the  Alexandrine  books  of  the  Bible  occur  in  this 

epistle :    TroXufxepoo?  i.    1  =  Wisd.    vii.    22  ;    aTravyaa-fxa  [.   3 
=  Wisd.  vii.  25  ;  VTroa-rdcng  i.  3  =  Wisd.  xvi.  21  ;   Oepairwv 

iii.  5  =  Wisd.  x.  16.  The  style — both  as  to  words 
and  construction — is  similar  to  that  of  Philo  who  was 
an  Alexandrian  Jew,  and  the  writer  was  a  member 
of  the  community  to  which  he  wrote.  The  difficulties 
that  exegesis  finds  in  the  question  of  the  tabernacle 
(ix.  2,  17)  and  in  what  is  said  of  the  high  priest  offer- 
ing sacrifice  daily  for  sin  (vii.  27)  would  disappear  if 
it  were  admitted  that  the  writer  referred  to  the  Jewish 
temple  of  Leontopolis. 

These  arguments  are  not  convincing.  We  shall 
see  later  on  to  what  extent  the  writer  was  under 
Judeo-Alexandrine  influence.  But  even  when  we 
admit  that  some  such  influence  makes  itself  felt,  there 
is  no  proof  that  this  epistle  was  written  to  Alexandrian 
Jews.  For  it  is  quite  clear  that  others  could  under- 
stand these  ideas.  The  spiritualisation  of  the  law 
was  known  everywhere  in  the  Diaspora,  and  must 
have  been  known  in  Jerusalem  where  the  Alexandrian 
Jews  had  a  synagogue  (Acts  vi.  9).  The  quotations 
are  not  numerous,  and  only  one  is  really  telling.  The 
exegetical  difficulties  are  exactly  the  same  whether 
the  writer  was  thinking  of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem 
or  in  Leontopolis.  Finally  if  this  epistle  was 
written  to  the  Alexandrians,  how  is  it  that  the 
Alexandrian  doctors  :  Pantenus,  Origen  and  Clement 
were  not  aware  of  it,  or  being  aware  are 
silent  ? 

Tradition  as  represented  by  Pantenus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  St  Jerome 


294  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

says  almost  unanimously  that  this  epistle  was  written 
to  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem.  Nowhere  else  but 
there  were  there  no  Gentiles.  That  is  why  the 
writer  nowhere  refers  to  Gentiles.  The  way  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  tabernacle  and  of  the  ceremonies  of 
public  worship  (ix.  2-9)  proves  that  he  was  thinking 
of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  No  other  Christians  but 
those  in  Jerusalem  would  have  needed  to  be  told 
that  it  was  not  a  misfortune  to  have  no  part  in  the 
temple  rites  or  even  to  be  excluded  from  them.  Be- 
cause the  Christians  in  Jerusalem,  imitating  the 
example  of  the  Apostles,  continued  for  a  long  time 
to  go  to  the  temple  and  to  take  part  in  its  worship. 
To  whom  else  could  the  writer  say :  *'  You  ought  to 
be  masters,  yet  you  have  need  to  be  taught  again  the 
first  elements  of  the  word  of  God  "  (v.  12,  vi.  1-3). 
The  allusion  to  persecutions  in  which  the  chiefs 
died  (xiii.  7)  whereas  the  faithful  had  not  re- 
sisted unto  blood,  would  be  applicable  to  the 
martyrdom  of  Stephen  and  James  the  Less.  Finally 
the  promise  that  God  would  not  forget  the  good 
offices  to  the  saints  in  the  past  and  in  the  pre- 
sent, applies  to  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem.  In 
the  New  Testament  the  saints  when  there  is  no 
qualification  usually  designates  the  Christians  of 
Jerusalem  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2 ;  2  Cor.  viii.  4 ;  Rom. 
XV.  31). 

It  is  said  that  if  this  epistle  had  been  intended  to 
be  read  in  Jerusalem,  it  would  have  been  written  in 
Aramaic  and  not  in  Greek.  We  answer  that  Greek 
was  an  international  language  at  this  time,  that  many 
people  in  Jerusalem  understood  it,  and  that  the 
epistle  could  be  translated  into  Aramaic  to  be  read 
in  public  as  was  the  custom  in  the  synagogues  for 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         295 


3.    OCCASION    AND    OBJECT    OF   THE    EPISTLE 
TO    THE    HEBREWS 

The  epistle  itself  is  the  only  source  from  which  we 
can  derive  any  information  as  to  its  purpose.  We 
shall  show  later  on  that  it  was  written  about  the 
year  63-66.  But  even  if  we  suppose  that  it  was 
written  at  a  later  date,  the  following  remarks  would 
still  have  their  proper  value,  and  some  of  them  might 
acquire  all  the  greater  demonstrative  force.  In  63- 
66  more  than  thirty  years  had  elapsed  since  Our 
Lord  made  the  promise  to  the  Apostles :  "  this 
generation  shall  not  pass  away  until  all  this  come  to 
pass  "  (Matt.  xxiv.  34),  referring  to  the  Coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man  and  the  kingdom  of  God,  yet  the  faithful 
saw  no  realisation  of  the  promise.  The  Lord  had 
been  awaited  by  the  whole  of  the  first  Christian 
generation.  He  had  not  come,  and  the  generation 
had  passed  away.  This  was  a  cause  of  anxiety  and 
of  doubt  to  all  the  faithful.  We  have  seen  a  mani- 
festation of  it  in  1  Thess.  v.  13. 

The  Jewish  Christians  were  more  anxious  than  the 
converts  from  Paganism.  They  had  not  forgotten 
the  splendour  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  JNIosaic  wor- 
ship. They  remembered  the  whole  body  of  laws  and 
observances  intended  for  the  sanctification  of  civil 
and  religious  life.  Those  laws  and  rites  were  still 
for  them  clothed  with  the  authority  of  the  God 
"  who  had  made  the  promise  to  Abraham  "  (vi.  13). 
Nor  had  they  forgotten  Moses  "  who  had  been  faith- 
ful in  his  house  to  Him  that  had  made  him  "  (iii.  2). 
God  Himself  had  prescribed  the  rules  of  worship 
(ix.  1),  and  the  tabernacle  had  been  built  according 
to  His  design  (ix.  2-5).     There  was  a  High  Priest 


296  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

appointed  to  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  the  sins  of 
the  people  and  for  his  own  sins  (v.  1). 

This  deception  and  these  memories  made  the 
Jewish  Christians  doubt  whether  there  was  any  value 
or  efficacy  in  the  Christian  institution  which,  apart 
from  the  breaking  of  bread,  had  no  organisation  for 
worship.  No  temple,  no  altar  —  at  least  in  the 
material  sense,  none  of  those  ritual  prescriptions  to 
which  they  were  accustomed  and  which  seemed  to 
them  to  be  externally  essential  to  religion.  For  the 
Christians  of  those  days,  Christianity  consisted  al- 
together in  the  hope  of  Christ's  Coming,  and  the 
realisation  of  that  hope  seemed  more  distant  every  day. 

We  cannot  say  whether  any  apostasies  actually 
occurred,  whether  any  Christians  actually  went  back 
to  Judaism,  though  x.  39  seems  to  allude  to  this  having 
been  the  case.  But  faith  began  to  fail,  and  there 
were  backslidings  and  falls,  for  the  writer  declares  it 
to  be  impossible  that  those  who  have  once  been 
enlightened  and  have  had  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
have  fallen  away  should  be  renewed  by  repentance 
(vi.  4-6) ;  he  threatens  with  awful  penalties  those  who 
trample  on  the  Son  of  God,  who  esteem  as  unclean 
the  blood  of  the  Testament  by  which  they  were 
made  holy  and  offer  affi'ont  to  the  Spirit  of  grace  (x. 
29) ;  there  are  some,  he  says,  who  abandon  their 
assemblies  (x.  25).  The  exhortations  to  faithfulness 
(iii.  1,  2,  6 ;  iv.  14 ;  x.  23 ;  xiii.  9)  are  so  numerous 
and  so  urgent  that  we  must  believe  that  faithfulness 
was  failing. 

Hence  piety  and  morality  suffered  loss  (vi.  4-8,  x. 
29),  the  writer  had  to  warn  his  readers  to  respect  the 
marriage  bed  (xiii.  4),  and  purity  (xii.  16),  he  had  to 
remind  them  of  sanctification  (xii.  12),  of  fraternal 
charity  and  hospitality  (xiii.  1). 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT         297 

In  order  to  reassure  his  readers  and  to  put  an  end 
to  their  doubts,  he  undertakes  to  prove  that  the  New 
Testament  is  greater  than  the  Old  Testament.  He 
shows  that  the  instruments  of  the  Old  Testament: 
angels,  prophets,  Moses,  high  priest,  priests,  and 
levites  are  inferior  to  Christ  who  is  the  instrument 
of  the  New  Testament.  Then  comparing  the  two 
Testaments  he  shows  that  the  New  Testament  is  the 
greater  because  its  sanctuary  is  in  heaven,  its  sacrifice 
is  perfect  of  its  own  nature  and  needs  not  to  be 
repeated,  whereas  the  Old  Testament  had  its  sanctuary 
on  earth  and  its  sacrifices  had  constantly  to  be 
repeated.  He  draws  the  conclusion  that  the  faithful 
must  remain  true  to  their  faith. 

History  confirms  what  we  have  thus  proved  by 
internal  evidence.  Eusebius  (Hist.  iv.  22)  says  that 
after  the  martyrdom  of  James  the  Just,  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  was  disturbed  by  a  man  named  Thebatis 
who  was  angry  at  not  having  been  made  bishop  in 
succession  to  St  James.  This  was  also  the  time 
when  the  first  tendencies  to  Ebionitism  began  to 
show  themselves.  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  seems 
to  have  had  in  view  Christians  who  believed  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  yet  thought  that  the 
Mosaic  rites  should  continue  to  be  observed. 

This  is  undoubtedly  the  right  view  if  the  epistle 
was  intended  for  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  but  it 
would  not  be  true  in  the  case  of  Rome  or  Alexandria. 
In  that  case  the  writer's  principal  object  would  have 
been  to  impress  upon  the  readers  his  practical  exhorta- 
tions and  to  strengthen  them  against  the  fear  of 
persecution  by  the  thought  of  the  supereminence  of 
Christ  in  His  person  and  in  His  work.  Yet  even  in 
this  case  he  naturally  based  his  whole  argument  upon 
the  Old  Testament,  because  that  was  for  all  Christians, 


298  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  the  divine  book ;  it  was 
read  and  expounded  in  all  the  Christian  assemblies, 
and  Clement  of  Rome  writing  to  Gentiles  at  Corinth 
makes  quite  as  much  use  of  testimonies  from  the 
Old  Testament  as  the  writer  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  In  a  word,  in  this  hypothesis,  all  that  is 
said  of  Christ  is  meant  to  promote  fidelity  to  Him. 
This  latter  opinion  differs  from  the  one  before  it  only 
in  the  point  of  view  that  it  takes  ;  it  takes  the  practical 
view  of  this  epistle,  whereas  the  other  takes  the 
dogmatic  view. 

4.    ANALYSIS    OF    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS 

The  prologue  (i.  1-3)  contrasts  how  God  spoke  to 
the  Fathers  through  prophets,  and  now  in  the  last 
days  has  spoken  through  the  Son. 

In  the  body  of  the  epistle  from  i.  4-iv.  13  the 
writer  treats  of  the  superiority  of  Christ  over  the 
angels  and  over  other  mediators.  Then  from  iv.  14- 
vii.  3  he  speaks  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ  being 
similar  to  that  of  Melchisedech,  and  prepares  his 
readers  for  no  elementary  teaching  but  for  that  which 
is  perfect.  From  vii.  4  to  x.  18  he  shows  the  superi- 
ority of  Melchisedech's  priesthood  over  that  of  the 
Old  Testament,  the  superiority  of  Christ's  sacrifice 
over  the  ancient  sacrifices,  and  that  it  was  necessary 
that  Christ  should  die.  From  x.  19  to  xiii.  17  he 
exhorts  his  readers  to  persevere  in  the  faith,  and 
recommends  hospitality  and  other  virtues. 

The  epilogue  (xiii.  18-25)  asks  them  to  pray  that 
the  writer  may  soon  be  restored  to  them,  and  he 
promises  to  bring  with  him  Timothy  who  has  recently 
been  set  free.  He  sends  the  salutations  of  those  from 
Italy  and  ends  with  :  "  Grace  be  with  you  all." 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         299 


5.    DATE    OF   THE   EPISTLE 

Tradition  gives  us  no  information  on  this  point, 
and  critics  are  not  in  agreement  with  regard  to  it. 
Ewald,  Lewis  and  Ramsay  place  the  epistle  between 
58  and  60 ;  Westcott,  Wieseler,  Riehm,  Weiss, 
Menegoz,  Davidson,  Comely,  Schafer,  Trenkle, 
Belser  and  Huyghe  place  it  between  65  and  66 
probably  before  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  war ; 
Holtzman,  Schenkel  and  von  Soden  place  it  in  90 
in  the  time  of  the  persecution  under  Domitian ; 
Pfleiderer  in  95-115;  Volkmar,  Keim  and  Hausrath 
in  116-118  during  Trajan's  persecution.  The  latest 
of  these  dates  are  impossible  because  Clement  of 
Rome  writing  about  93-97  undoubtedly  had  this 
epistle  before  him,  so  that  we  need  not  discuss  them. 

We  find  in  the  epistle  itself  information  that 
enables  us  to  fix  the  date  approximatively.  We 
read  (chapter  ii.  3) :  *'  The  salvation  which  was  first 
announced  by  the  Lord  has  been  confirmed  to  us 
by  those  who  heard  Him  "  ;  (v.  12)  the  readers  ought 
long  ago  to  have  been  masters  ;  (x.  32)  they  under- 
went in  the  early  days  after  their  enlightenment  a 
great  trial  ;  (xii.  12)  whereas  now  their  hands  are 
weak  and  their  knees  feeble,  they  follow  ways  not 
straight ;  (xiii.  7)  the  leaders  who  spoke  to  them  the 
word  of  God  have  reached  the  end  of  their  lives. 
From  all  these  texts  it  fellows  that  the  epistle  was 
written  in  the  time  of  the  second  generation  of 
Christians.  Timothy's  imprisonment  would  make 
the  date  62-63,  for  we  know  of  no  earlier  im- 
prisonment of  his.  And  if  we  believe  the  epistle 
to  be  addressed  to  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  it 
cannot   have  been   written   before  the  death  of  St 


300  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

James,  because  it  says  (xiii.  17) :  "  Obey  those  who 
are  placed  over  you  "  ;  it  may  be  that  after  the  death 
of  St  James  in  62  the  presbyteroi  of  Jerusalem 
exercised  authority,  but  had  some  difficulty  in  doing 
so,  which  would  explain  the  exhortation  that  we  have 
just  quoted. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  have  been  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70,  because 
the  writer  says  that  levitical  sacrifices  are  still  being 
offered  (x.  1-3):  "there  is  made  a  commemoration 
every  year,"  and  (viii.  4) :  "  if  Jesus  was  on  earth 
He  would  not  be  a  priest,  there  being  the  priests 
who  offer  gifts  according  to  the  law."  Besides  the 
whole  reasoning  supposes  the  old  Mosaic  worship  to 
exist,  and  as  we  have  said  the  writer  dissuades  the 
readers  from  going  back  to  it.  And  once  the  temple 
was  destroyed,  there  was  no  reason  to  dissuade  any- 
one from  going  back  to  that  worship,  because  it  no 
longer  existed.  Finally  the  writer  would  certainly 
have  said  that  the  temple  had  been  destroyed,  if  it 
had  been  destroyed  at  the  time  he  wrote,  for  he 
would  have  found  in  that  fact  an  unanswerable 
argument. 

It  must  however  have  been  written  before  the 
Jewish  war,  since  that  war  is  not  mentioned.  But 
it  was  not  written  long  before  the  war :  the  times 
of  persecution  (xii.  4),  and  of  the  promises  (x.  36) 
appear  to  be  near,  the  faithful  see  the  approach  of 
the  great  day  (x.  25).  All  these  texts  point  to  a 
great  future  event.  We  must  therefore  fix  the  date 
about  63-66. 

However  critics  of  real  weight,  among  whom  we 
may  mention  Zahn  (Einl.  in  das  N.  T.  p.  140),  prefer 
the  date  of  the  year  70.  The  following  is  a 
summary  of  their  arguments.     The  readers  belong 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         301 

to  the  subapostolic  age  (ii.  3,  4  ;  v.  12 ;  x.  22) ;  the 
writer  is  acquainted  with  the  epistles  of  St  Paul, 
St  Peter,  St  James,  with  the  writings  of  St  I^uke 
and  with  the  Apocalypse.  The  Mosaic  dispensation 
is  for  him  an  ancient  dispensation  (ix.  1)  that  once 
had  a  public  worship  but  that  has  it  no  longer  at 
the  time  of  his  writing.  He  never  speaks  of  the 
temple,  but  always  of  the  tabernacle,  which  he  would 
not  have  done  had  the  temple  been  in  existence.  If 
he  had  wished  to  allude  to  the  temple,  he  could  have 
done  so  even  after  its  destruction,  since  for  a  Jew 
the  temple  pre-existed  in  heaven  before  it  was  built 
upon  earth,  and  existed  in  heaven  after  it  had 
temporarily  been  destroyed.  Other  writers  have 
spoken  of  it  in  that  way,  thus  Clement  of  Rome 
(Cor.  xli.  2)  says :  "  It  is  not  in  every  place  but  only 
in  Jerusalem  that  perpetual  and  votive  sacrifices  are 
offered."  We  ourselves  constantly  speak  of  the 
past  in  the  present  tense,  which  in  grammatical 
phraseology  we  call  the  historic  present. 

We  admit  that  these  arguments  have  their  value, 
but  we  do  not  consider  them  convincing.  For  there 
is  time  enough  before  70  for  those  who  had  heard 
the  immediate  disciples  of  the  Lord  (ii.  3,  4)  to  have 
lived  and  died.  We  shall  presently  consider  the 
literary  connection  of  this  epistle  with  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  but  in  any  case  direct  borrow- 
ing is  not  evident.  The  context  explains  (ix.  1-9). 
Though  the  writer  does  not  mention  the  temple,  he 
thinks  of  it  when  he  says  (ix.  6,  7) :  "  The  priests 
enter  constantly  into  the  first  enclosure,  whereas  the 
high  priest  alone  enters  once  a  year  into  the  second." 
He  speaks  of  the  tabernacle  in  place  of  speaking  of 
the  temple,  because  his  argument  required  him  to 
speak  in  that  way.    He  bases  his  thesis  upon  the  Old 


302  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

Testament  and  quotes  the  texts  that  refer  to  the 
Mosaic  rites.  All  these  texts  speak  of  the  tabernacle 
and  not  of  the  temple.  He  quotes  them  simply 
as  he  finds  them.  We  admit  that  the  present  tense 
may  be  used  for  the  past,  but  that  proves  that  writer 
might  have  written  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
in  that  tense,  it  does  not  prove  that  the  temple  had 
been  destroyed.  On  the  whole  it  seems  to  us  more 
likely  that  the  date  is  earlier  than  the  year  70. 


6.  PLACE  OF  WRITING 

On  this  again  tradition  is  silent.  The  only  clue  is 
in  the  words :  "  Those  of  Italy  "  (xiii.  24).  If  airo 
means  ej  it  signifies  that  those  who  came  from  Italy 
sent  their  salutations,  if  it  means  what  airo  commonly 
means  it  signifies  that  those  who  are  in  Italy  send 
salutations.  Some  MSS.  viz.,  A.  P.  47,  are  marked  airo 
pM/ut.}]?,  others  K,  109,  113,  etc.,  are  marked  airo  iraXia^, 
but  those  words  are  recent  additions  and  are  evidence 
only  of  the  opinion  of  the  time  when  the  codex  was 
written. 

An  ingenious  hypothesis  originally  made  by  Lewis 
and  afterwards  taken  up  and  rendered  more  probable 
by  Ramsay  (Expositor,  1899)  is  deserving  of  mention. 
It  is  that  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written 
during  St  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Cesarea,  and  was 
the  outcome  of  conferences  that  he  had  with  the 
presbyters  of  that  town.  Its  object  was  to  bring 
about  a  reconciliation  between  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  partisans  of  Paul,  by  showing  to  the  former 
that  the  pauline  doctrine  explained  very  satisfactorily 
the  relation  of  the  two  Testaments  to  one  another. 
Philip  the  deacon  was  the  writer.     Paul   approved, 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         303 

and    wrote    the    last    verses.     It    is    an    attractive 
hypothesis,  but  it  has  no  support  in  any  text. 


7.  AUTHOR  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

Christian  tradition  had  not  originally  anything 
definite  to  say  on  this  matter,  nor  are  critics  now  in 
agreement  concerning  it.  Let  us  endeavour  to  trace 
the  history  of  the  epistle  in  Christian  literature,  study 
the  linguistic,  doctrinal  and  historical  peculiarities  of 
the  epistle  itself,  and  in  this  way  we  shall  discover  the 
conditions  that  any  hypothesis  as  to  the  author's  name 
must  comply  with. 

We  must  examine  the  writings  of  the  first  three 
centuries,  noting  what  each  author  said  as  to  this 
epistle  being  part  of  Holy  Writ,  and  studying  separ- 
ately the  two  traditions  of  the  East  and  of  the  West, 
for  in  the  beginning  they  were  independent,  and  the 
one  had  no  influence  on  the  other  until  the  fifth 
century. 

Tra.dition  of  the  Eastern  Churches. — In  the  writings 
of  the  early  Oriental  Fathers  there  are  not  many 
passages  that  remind  one  of  this  epistle.  The  epistle 
of  Barnabas  (v.  1)  has  the  expression  pavTi(rfA.o?  dtjuarog  — 
Heb.  xii.  24  which  occurs  also  1  Peter  i.  2 ;  Polycarp 
calls  Christ  a  High  Priest  aiwmo^  ap^i€peu<; ;  Justin  calls 
Him  an  Apostle,  both  of  these  titles  occurring  in  Heb. 
iii.  1  and  not  in  any  other  book  of  the  Scriptures. 
Justin  says  also  (Tryphon,  113)  that  Christ  is  an 
eternal  High  Priest  according  to  the  order  of  Mel- 
chisedech  King  of  Salem,  and  these  titles  also  occur 
only  in  Heb.  (v.  9,  vi.  20,  vii.  13). 

Pantenus  the  head  of  the  catechetical  school  of 
Alexandria  is  the  first  to  give  us  a  definite  statement 


304  HISTORY  OF   THE   BOOKS 

of  the  name  of  the  author  of  this  epistle.  Eusebius 
(Hist.  vi.  14)  quotes  his  testimony  from  Clement  of 
Alexandria :  "  Clement  says  in  his  Hypostases  that 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  the  work  of  Paul  and 
that  it  was  written  in  Hebrew.  Luke  translated  it 
with  care  for  the  Greeks,  and  this  explains  the  simil- 
arity of  its  style  to  that  of  the  Acts.  But  he 
explains  that  the  words  "  Paul  the  Apostle  "  were  not 
put  at  the  commencement,  because  writing  to  the 
Hebrews  who  looked  upon  him  with  suspicion  he  did 
not  wish  to  shock  them  with  the  sight  of  his  name." 
"  But  now  " — he  continues  farther  on — "  as  the  blessed 
presbyter  Pantenus  says,  since  the  Lord  was  the 
Apostle  of  the  Most  High  and  was  sent  to  the 
Hebrews,  Paul  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  was  un- 
willing out  of  reverence  for  the  Lord  to  write  him- 
self down  as  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews,  because  being 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  he  wrote  to  the  Hebrews, 
out  of  superabundance."  Elsewhere  (Strom,  vi.  8) 
Clement  quotes  (v.  12)  from  the  epistle  which  he  says 
Paul  wrote  to  the  Hebrews. 

Origen's  testimony  as  given  by  Eusebius  is  very 
clear :  "  The  style  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has 
not  the  defects  that  are  characteristic  of  St  Paul's 
writings,  the  Apostle  himself  admits  those  defects, 
the  diction  of  this  epistle  is  more  pure,  and  anyone 
who  is  able  to  understand  the  phraseology  can  per- 
ceive the  difference.  Again  everyone  who  examines 
carefully  the  apostolic  writings  will  admit  that  the 
thoughts  in  this  epistle  are  admirable  and  in  no  way 
inferior  to  those  of  admittedly  apostolic  writings. 
Were  I  to  give  my  opinion,  I  should  say  that  the 
thoughts  vot'iixaTa  are  the  Apostle's,  but  that  the  word- 
ing and  the  arrangement  are  the  work  of  someone 
who   remembered   the   Apostle's    teaching.      Conse- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         305 

quently,  if  any  church  looks  upon  this  as  a  work  of 
St  Paul,  that  is  praiseworthy,  for  it  is  not  without 
reason  that  the  ancients  have  handed  it  down  as  his. 
But  who  is  the  one  who  wrote  the  epistle  .  .  .  God 
knows  the  truth.  The  tradition  has  come  to  us  that 
Clement  bishop  of  the  Romans  wrote  it,  others  say 
Luke  who  wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts."  This 
judgment  is  Origen's  best  and  most  critical  judg- 
ment. Yet  elsewhere  he  is  more  affirmative  :  he  says 
that  he  is  ready  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  Paul's, 
and  he  sometimes  quotes  it  as  Paul's  adding  however 
that  that  opinion  is  not  universal.  On  the  whole 
Origen's  opinion  appears  to  be  clear  enough :  the 
epistle  differs  from  the  other  pauline  epistles  in  lan- 
guage and  in  arrangement,  but  the  thoughts  are  the 
apostle's.  Consequently  the  writer  is  not  a  simple 
scribe,  he  is  a  disciple  of  Paul's,  and  he  has  com- 
posed the  epistle  by  commenting  on  his  master's 
teaching.  In  everything  else,  in  language  and  in 
reasoning,  he  is  original. 

The  Alexandrine  Fathers :  St  Dionysius,  St  Peter 
of  Alexandria,  St  Alexander,  St  Athanasius,  Didy- 
mus,  St  Cyril  all  attibuted  this  epistle  to  St  Paul. 
Euthalius  speaks  of  ancient  doubts,  but  answers  them 
in  the  same  way  as  Origen  and  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria. This  epistle  holds  the  tenth  place  in  the 
synopsis  of  pseudo- Athanasius,  and  St  Epiphanius 
affirms  that  there  is  no  MS.  that  does  not  contain  it 
in  the  tenth  or  fourteenth  place.  In  264  the  Fathers 
of  the  Council  of  Antioch  quote  it  against  Paul  of 
Samosata  as  St  Paul's.  St  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St 
John  Chrysostom,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Theo- 
doret  all  attribute  it  to  St  Paul.  Theodoret  says  that 
those  who  look  upon  it  as  spurious  suffer  from  the 
morbus  arianicus.  The  Syriac  version,  the  Syraic  and 
u 


306  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

Cappadocian  Fathers,  and  the  ecumenical  Council  of 
Nicea  accept  it  as  being  pauline. 

Eusebius  gives  in  his  history  the  testmony  of  vari- 
ous churches  on  the  New  Testament  writings,  he 
has  three  categories  :  the  homologoumena  (accepted  by 
all),  the  antilegomena  (disputed) and  the  apocryphal;  he 
places  this  epistle  in  the  second  category.  Yet  else- 
where he  says  distinctly  that  it  is  St  Paul's  :  there  are 
he  says  fourteen  epistles  admitted  and  not  disputed. 
Yet  again  (Hist.  iii.  3)  he  says:  "  Paul  wrote  to  the 
Hebrews  in  their  own  language,  but  Clement  rather 
than  Luke  translated  the  epistle.  But  we  must  men- 
tion that  some  reject  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  on 
the  pretext  that  it  was  discussed  by  the  church  of 
Rome  because  it  had  not  been  written  by  St  Paul." 
On  the  whole,  Eusebius,  in  spite  of  the  doubts  that 
he  records,  holds  that  this  epistle  is  pauline. 

So  that  from  the  end  of  the  second  century  the 
Eastern  Church  held  this  epistle  to  be  of  apostolic 
origin  and  canonical,  its  place  in  the  MSS.  was  at  the 
end  of  the  pauline  epistles  and  this  helped  to  cause  it 
to  be  attributed  to  him.  Yet  from  a  literary  scruple, 
people  did  not  believe  that  the  Greek  text  was 
apostolic,  either  because  it  was  a  translation,  or 
because  it  was  the  work  of  some  other  writer.  The 
divergencies  as  to  who  the  writer  was,  show  that  there 
was  no  tradition  to  go  by,  there  were  only  conjec- 
tures. Little  by  little  opinion  became  solidified,  the 
Alexandrine  tradition  was  accepted  without  restriction, 
and  the  epistle  was  admitted  to  be  pauline. 

Tj^adition  of  the  Westeim  Church. — St  Jerome  gives 
the  judgment  of  the  Roman  church  as  follows ; 
"  Sed  et  apud  Roinanos  usque  hodie  quasi  Pauli  Apostoli 
non  habetur.''  Nevertheless  this  epistle  was  known  in 
that  church  from  the  beginning  as  we  learn  from 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         307 

Eusebius :  "  In  this  epistle  [to  the  Corinthians] 
Clement  gives  many  thoughts  taken  from  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  and  quotes  verbally  from  it,  showing 
plainly  that  it  is  not  a  recent  production.  Some  have 
thought  that  Clement  translated  it  from  the  Hebrew. 
That  seems  probable  because  between  the  epistle  of 
Clement  and  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  there  is 
similarity  of  style  and  thought."  St  Jerome  also  in- 
sists on  this  point.  Funk  gives  twenty  and  Holtzman 
forty-seven  passages  in  Clement's  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  which  remind  one  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  expressions  are  identical,  but  not  one  is 
a  literal  quotation. 

After  Clement,  no  writer  of  the  Roman  church 
quotes  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  until  the  fourth 
century.  The  similarities  noticed  in  the  Pastor  of 
Hermas  are  very  indefinite.  Marcion  had  it  not  in 
his  Apostolicon.  Muratori's  Canon  does  not  mention 
it,  but  appears  to  exclude  it  by  the  statement  that 
Paul  wrote  to  seven  churches,  whereas  the  number 
would  be  eight  if  this  epistle  were  counted.  This 
epistle  cannot  be  the  one  Ad  Alexandrinos  which  is 
mentioned  after  the  epistle  Ad  Laodicenses,  because 
the  Canon  goes  on  to  say  that  it  was  put  under  the 
name  of  Paul  to  defend  the  heresy  of  Marcion.  The 
catalogue  of  Claromontanus  (third  or  fourth  century) 
does  not  contain  this  epistle.  Yet  the  epistle  must 
have  been  known  in  Rome,  for  Eusebius  mentions 
that  a  Roman  priest  Caius  in  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century  knew  it  and  did  not  think  it  to  be 
pauline,  and  "to  this  day,  he  adds,  there  are  some 
among  the  Romans  who  do  not  consider  it  to  be  the 
work  of  the  Apostle  "  (Hist.  vi.  20).  The  'Vwixaloi 
mentioned  here  are  not  the  Christians  of  Rome  only, 
they  are  the   Latins  in  general.      Melchisedechians, 


308  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

whose  chief  was  the  Roman  banker  Theodotus,  proved 
from  this  epistle  that  Melchisedech  had  no  father  or 
mother.  St  Ireneus  does  not  quote  this  epistle  in 
adv.  her.,  though  he  quotes  all  the  other  epistles  of  St 
Paul  except  the  one  to  Philemon ;  yet  in  two  places 
he  seems  to  have  had  it  in  mind :  "  The  Father 
established  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power" 
{adv.  her,  ii.  30  =  Heb.  i.  3),  and  :  "  The  old  law  is  the 
figure  and  the  shadow  of  future  things  "  {ih.  iv.  11  = 
Heb.  X.  1).  Eusebius  informs  us  that  in  a  work  which 
is  now  lost :  rthv  SiaXe^eoov  Smcpopwv  Ireneus  speaks  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  quotes  from  it.  The 
heretic  Gobaros  (Bibl.  de  Photius  ed.  Becker,  p.  391) 
tells  us  that  Ireneus  and  Hippolytus  in  the  third 
century  did  not  consider  this  epistle  to  be  the  work  of 
the  Apostle. 

From  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Gaul  let  us  go 
now  to  those  of  Africa  whose  testimony  we  shall  find 
to  be  very  important.  Tertullian  quotes  this  epistle 
only  once  and  attributes  it  to  Barnabas.  He  proves  a 
thesis  by  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  the 
Gospels,  the  epistles  of  St  Paul,  the  Apocalypse,  the 
first  epistle  of  St  John,  and  adds  :  *'  Volo  tamen  ex 
redundantia  alicujus  etiam  comitis  apostolorum  testi- 
monium superducere.  Extat  enim  et  Barnabse  titulus 
ad  Hebrseos.  Et  utique  receptior  apud  Ecclesias 
epistola  Barnabse  illo  apocrypho  Pastore  meechorum  " 
— he  quotes  chapter  vi.  1  and  4-8  and  continues : 
"  Hoc  qui  ab  apostolis  docuit  nunquam  mgecho  et 
fornicatori  secundam  poenitentiam  promissam  ab  apos- 
tolis norat.  Optime  enim  legem  interpretabatur  et 
figuras  ejus  jam  in  ipsa  veritate  servabat."  That  last 
sentence  puts  it  beyond  all  doubt  that  he  is  speaking 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

We  cannot  say  whether  Novatianus  and  Novatus 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         309 

knew  of  this  epistle,  or  whether  they  held  it  to  be 
pauline,  we  find  no  quotations  from  it  in  their 
writings.  But  from  the  text  of  Philaster  which  we 
shall  presently  quote  their  adherents  appear  to  have 
made  a  bad  use  of  this  epistle.  Neither  St  Cyprian 
nor  any  of  the  writers  whose  books  are  attributed 
to  him  quote  from  this  epistle ;  he  did  not  believe 
it  to  be  St  Paul's  for  he  says  that  the  Apostle  wrote 
to  seven  churches. 

The  Latin  Church  therefore  before  the  fourth 
century  knew  of  this  epistle  but  did  not  believe  it 
to  be  pauline.  St  Jerome  gives  the  following  account 
of  the  opinion  of  his  time :  "  Illud  nostris  dicendum 
est,  banc  epistolam  quee  inscribitur  ad  Hebreeos  non 
solum  ab  Ecclesiis  Orientis  sed  ab  omnibus  retro 
ecclesiasticis  Graeci  sermonis  scriptoribus  quasi  Pauli 
apostoli  suscipi,  Ucet  plerique  eam  vel  Barnabas  vel 
Clementis  arbitrentur :  et  nihil  interesse  cujus  sit 
quum  ecclesiastici  viri  sit,  et  quotidie  Ecclesiarum 
lectione  celebretur.  Quod  si  eam  Latinorum  con- 
suetudo  non  recipit  inter  canonicas  scripturas ;  nee 
Graecorum  quidem  Ecclesiae  Apocalypsin  Joannis 
eadem  libertate  suscipiunt ;  et  tamen  nos  utrumque 
suscipimus ;  nequaquam  hujus  temporis  consuetu- 
dinem,sed  veterum  scriptorum  auctoritatem  sequentes, 
qui  plerumque  utriusque  abutuntur  testimoniis,  non 
ut  interdum  de  apocryphis  facere  solent,  quippe  qui 
et  gentilium  literarum  utuntur  exemplis,  sed  quasi 
canonicis  et  ecclesiasticis." 

Hilary  of  Poitiers  (de  Trin.  4,  11),  Lucifer  of 
Cagliari  (de  non  con  v.  cum  her.  ed.  Migne,  13,  p.  782), 
Victorinus  (adv.  Arium,  1),  Gaudentius  (Migne,  20, 
348),  Faustinus  (de  Trin.  2),  Ambrose  (de  fuga 
sage.  16),  and  Rufinus  (symb.  apost.  37)  quote  it  as 
St  Paul's.     Nevertheless  Philaster  bishop  of  Brescia 


310  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  says :  "  Sunt  ahi 
quoque  qui  epistolam  Pauh  ad  Hebrgeos  non  asserunt 
esse  ipsius,  sed  dicunt  Barnabae  apostoH  aut  demen- 
tis de  Urbe  episcopi,  ahi  autem  Lucge  Evangehstag." 
The  hst  in  the  Codex  Mommseianus  written  in  Africa 
towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  contains  only 
thirteen  epistles  of  St  Paul. 

St  Augustin's  testimony  is  very  characteristic.  In 
what  he  wrote  before  406  he  quotes  this  epistle  as  St 
Paul's.  From  409  to  420  which  is  the  date  of  his 
death  he  calls  it  always  Epistula  ad  HcbrcBos  with- 
out however  pronouncing  it  not  to  be  pauline.  He 
mentions  the  doubts,  but  does  not  give  his  own 
opinion  :  "  In  epistula  quse  dicitur  ad  Hebrseos  quam 
plures  apostoli  Pauli  esse  dicunt,  quidam  vero  negant " 
(de  civ.  Dei,  16,  22).  Yet  he  continues  to  hold  it  to 
be  canonical :  "  Magis  me  mo  vet  auctoritas  Ecclesi- 
arum  orientalium  quse  banc  (epistulam)  in  canonicis 
habent"  (de  pec.  meritis  i.  27,  50). 

The  same  uncertainty,  but  in  a  different  sense,  is  to 
be  seen  in  the  canons  of  the  African  Councils  at  this 
time.  The  Councils  of  Hippo  in  393  and  of  Carthage 
in  397  accept  as  canonical :  "  Pauli  apostoli  epistolse 
tredecim,  ejusdem  ad  Hebrseos  una,"  but  that  of 
Carthage  in  419  says :  "  Epistolae  Pauli  apostoli 
quatuordecim."  Innocent  1.  sent  a  list  of  the 
canonical  books  to  Exuperius  bishop  of  Toulouse  in 
405,  and  gave  in  it  fourteen  epistles  of  St  Paul.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  the  decree  that  goes  by  the 
name  of  Pope  Gelasius,  which  is  probably  the  cata- 
logue of  Pope  Damasus.  And  this  has  ever  since 
been  the  rule  for  the  Western  Church. 

Hence  it  was  not  until  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century  that  the  two  traditions  of  the  East  and  the 
West  coincided  as  to  the  authenticity  and  pauline 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         311 

authorship  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages  accepted  it  without 
question.  It  was  only  in  the  sixteenth  century  that 
the  question  was  reopened  by  Erasmus  and  Cajetan. 
The  latter  holds  that  the  epistle  is  not  pauline  and  is 
consequently  not  canonical,  mistakenly  connecting 
authenticity  and  canonicity. 

The  Council  of  Trent  declares  sacred  and  canonical 
fourteen  epistles  of  St  Paul  to  the  Romans  ...  to 
the  Hebrews.  The  Fathers  of  the  Council  had  no 
doubt  about  the  authorship,  if  they  had  had  any, 
they  would  have  expressed  it  as  they  did  in  the  case 
of  the  Psalms  of  David.  Hence  Melchior  Canus  (de 
locis  theol.  2,  11)  says:  "  Quum  hereticum  sit  cam 
epistolam  a  Script uris  sacris  excludere,  certe  temer- 
arium  est  (ne  quid  amplius  dicamus)  de  ejus  auctore 
dubitare  quem  Paulum  fuisse  certissimis  testimoniis 
constat."  Nevertheless  since  the  definitions  of  the 
Church  are  to  be  taken  strictly,  we  think  that  the 
question  of  the  pauline  origin  is  still  open,  and  that 
the  Council  spoke  in  commonly  received  terms,  with- 
out intending  to  define  the  authenticity. 

The  reformers,  Luther  first  among  them,  rejected 
this  epistle.  In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries  Protestant  theologians  accepted  it  again. 
At  the  present  time  every  Protestant  critic  except 
two :  Biesenthal  and  Kay,  dispute  its  pauline  origin. 
The  Catholics  believe  that  St  Paul  was  the  author, 
but  many  of  them  make  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  author  the  distinctions  that  Origen  made  long 
ago. 

Language  of  the  epistle.  Original  language. — 
Was  this  epistle  written  in  Hebrew  or  in  Greek? 
Various  answers  are  given  to  this  question.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  thought  as  we   have   seen   that   the 


312  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

original  was  in  Hebrew  and  that  St  Luke  translated 
it  into  Greek.  Origen  gave  quite  a  different  reason 
to  explain  why  this  epistle  differs  so  much  from  the 
other  pauline  epistles  in  style,  and  we  know  from 
these  two  facts  that  there  is  no  ancient  tradition 
behind  either  account.  Eusebius  admits  that  the 
original  was  in  Hebrew,  but  says  that  Clement 
was  the  translator  and  not  Luke.  Many  writers  : 
Theodoret,  Euthalius,  Primasius,  John  Damascene. 
(Ecumenius,  Theophylactus,  Cosmas  Indicopleustes, 
etc.,  adopt  this  view.  St  Jerome  sums  up  as  follows  : 
"  Scripserat  Paulus  ut  Hebrseus  Hebrseis  hebraice, 
id  est  suo  eloquio  disertissime  ut  ea  quae  eloquenter 
scripta  fuere  in  hebrseo  eloquentius  verterentur  in 
graecum  et  banc  causam  esse  quod  a  coeteris  Pauli 
epistolis  discrepare  videatur."  This  hypothesis  was 
adopted  in  the  Middle  Ages  by  Raban  Maur,  St 
Thomas,  etc.,  and  later  on  by  Cornelius  a  Lapide, 
Noel  Alexander,  Godhagen,  and  now  by  some 
Protestants  and  some  Catholics.  By  way  of  pre- 
liminary observation  we  may  remark  that  all  the 
versions  in  Latin,  Syriac,  Coptic  and  Armenian  have 
been  made  from  the  Greek. 

The  Greek  of  this  epistle  is  too  idiomatic  to  be 
a  translation.  To  see  that  this  is  the  case,  you  need 
only  compare  this  epistle  with  a  Greek  translation 
from  the  Hebrew,  with  any  book  of  the  Septuagint 
for  example.  Hebrew  sentences  are  made  up  of 
co-ordinate  propositions,  whereas  in  Greek  the  pro- 
positions are  subordinate  and  are  connected  by 
conjunctions  that  require  skilful  handling.  In  a 
translation  from  the  Hebrew,  the  sentences  keep 
their  Semitic  structure.  But  that  is  not  the  case 
in  this  epistle,  the  periods  are  numerous  and  well 
joined  together ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         313 

translator  could  have  put  them  in  if  the  original  text 
had  been  without  them.  We  have  here  therefore 
an  original  composition  from  the  pen  of  a  Jew 
who  was  well  acquainted  with  Greek.  It  cannot 
be  compared  except  with  the  Greek  Books  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  with  the  writings  of  Philo. 

The  author  was  a  Jew,  for  he  uses  hebraisms : 
tasting  death  (ii.  9),  seed  for  posterity, ^e^A  and  blood 
for  lasia,  finding  grace^  oixoXoyla  (iii.  1)  faith  confessed^ 
euXoyla  (vi.  7)  blessing,  to  work  justice,  pma  (vi.  5)  for 
'promise,  coming  from  the  loins  meaning :  being  born 
of,  seeing  death  meaning :  dying  (xi.  5),  walking  in 
meaning :  making  use  of  (xiii.  9),  before  God  mean- 
ing: in  God's  presence  (xiii.  21). 

The  above  are  hebraisms  of  words  or  expressions, 
but  there  are  also  hebraisms  of  grammar :  substantives 
in  the  genitive  in  opposition  to  other  substantives  in- 
stead of  adjectives  (i.  3)  by  the  word  of  his  power  for : 
his  powerful  word  (ix.  5) ;  Cherubim  of  glory  for  :  glori- 
ous Cherubim  (iv.  2) ;  the  word  of  hearing  for :  the 
word  heard  (v.  13) ;  word  of  justice  for  :  just  word. 
Hebrew  words  are  not  declined  (vii.  11,  ix.  4,  5  ;  xi. 
30 ;  xii.  22).  There  is  the  construction  airoa-rTjvai 
airo  (iii.  12)  instead  of  a  genitive;  \aXe2v  ev  (i.  1) 
for  ^(ct ;  ofjLwiJLL  Kara  tivo?  (vi.  13)  for  the  accusative ; 
KarairaveLv  intransitive,  with  airo  (iv.  10)  ;  etvai  elV  Ti 
(viii.    10)  for  elvai  ri  ;   the   pleonasm  iavrolg  or  ev  eavrok 

with  e-)(^eiv   (x.    34).     A  Greek  would  not  have   said 

(i.    1)  :    e-TT    eo-^arou  rcov  ^fjiepwv  tovtcov  nor  (v.   7)    ev  raig 
fiiJ.epai<s  Trj?  crapKog  avTOV. 

These  few  hebraisms  do  not  prove  that  this  is  a 
translation  from  the  Hebrew,  there  would  be  many 
more  in  that  case.  For  the  sake  of  comparison  we 
may  take  Luke  i.  5-80  which  is  about  one-fifth  as 
long  as  this  epistle.     That  fragment  translated   or 


314  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

adapted  from  the  Aramaic  contains  more  than  thirty 
hebraisms. 

There  are  also  Greek  expressions  that  have  no 
equivalent  in   Hebrew  and   are  untranslatable :   i.  3 

aTrauyaarjiia  Trjg  S6^r]9  reflection  of  His  glory  ;    V.  2  nierpio- 

iraOelv  to  havc  compassion  ;  v.  1 1  Sva-epjur'jveuTog  difficult 
to  explain ;  xii.  1  evTrepia-Taro^  easily  circumventing ; 
and  the  phrase  (xi.  1)  "faith  the  substance  of  things 
hoped  for,  the  proof  of  things  unseen." 

Above  all  there  are  paronomases  and  alliterations 
or  plays  upon  words  that  could  neither  be  understood 
nor  have  been  made  if  the  original  had  not  been  in 

Greek :    v.    8    ejmaOev    acb    <Sv    cTraOep,   v.    14   koXov    re    koi 

KUKov,  vii.  19  and  vii.  22  eyyiC^oixev  and  eyyo?,  viii.  7 

and  viii.  8  ajuefXTTTog  and  fxenKpoimevog,  ix.  28  Trpoa-eveydel^ 
and  avevejKelv,  xiii.  14  ov  lULevova-av  and  fxeWovcrav,  i.  1 
TToXv/xepw^  and  7roAi'T|0O7rft)9,  il.  8  uirora^ai  and  awTroTaKOv, 
vii.  3  airdroDp  and  ajtx-nTwp,  vii.  23  -rrapaiJiiveiv  and  [xeveiv^ 
ix.  10  /BpwfMacri  and  irofxacn,  X.  29  ^y^/crayuei/o?  and  ^yiacrOt], 

How  can  we  suppose  that  both  in  Hebrew  and  in 
Greek  there  are  so  many  words  that  could  be  used 
thus  alliteratively  ? 

The  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  agree 
with  the  Septuagint  even  when  it  is  not  in  agreement 
with  the  Hebrew.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that 
the  translator  has  adapted  the  Hebrew  text  to  the 
Greek,  because  the  argument  is  sometimes  based 
upon  a  passage  where  the  two  texts  disagree.  In  x. 
5  the  author  quotes  Psalm  xxxix.  7  according  to  the 
Septuagint :  "  That  is  why  the  Son  coming  into  this 
world  says :  Sacrifice  and  oblation  thou  wouldst 
not  accept  but  thou  didst  make  for  me  a  body,"  the 
reasoning  bears  altogether  upon  the  words :  "  Thou 
didst  make  for  me  a  body  "  which  are  in  the  Septuagint, 
whereas  in  Hebrew  there  is :  "  Thou  didst  open  my 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         315 

ears."  The  author  did  not  know  the  Hebrew 
text,  for  he  could  not  have  based  his  argument 
upon  it. 

In  other  places  he  quotes  facts  from  the  Septuagint 
that  are  given  differently  in  the  Hebrew.  Thus  (xi. 
21)  he  says  that  Jacob  adored  the  top  of  his  rod,  the 
Hebrew  text  says  :  the  head  of  his  bed.  We  find  in 
xii.  15  that  he  has  even  copied  a  faulty  translation 
that  is  peculiar  to  the  Codex  Alexandrinus :  piX^a  iriKpla^ 
avco  (pvova-a  ez/op(A^  a  i^oot  of  Mtterness  throwing  up 
trouble,  whereas  the  Vatican  Codex  translates  cor- 
rectly from  the  Hebrew :  pi'C^a  avco  (pvova-a  ev  yoXii  koi 
TTiKpia  a  root  producing  m  bitterness  and  trouble.  From 
all  this  we  conclude  that  the  original  text  of  this 
epistle  was  in  Greek  and  not  in  Hebrew. 

Yocabulary  of  the  epistle. — There  are  168  hapaoc- 
legomena,  of  which  12  occur  here  for  the  first  time : 

ayeveaXoyrirois,  alfxareK'^^vcrla,  €KTpoiut.09,  evTrepicrTaro^,  einroua, 
OearpL^ofxai,   juerpiwiraOeiu,    /uLia-OaTroSoa-ia^    7rp6o")(yari?,    crvyKa- 

Kovy^eofxai,  reXeiooTi^?  vTroa-ToXi]',  18  occur  in  contemporary 
or  later  literature :  dOeTw^^,  Sva-epfxyvevro^,  iroXviuepw^, 
Tpa-)(ri\i^eiv,  etc. ;  74  words  occur  in  classic  writers  and 
in  the  Septuagint  but  not  in  any  other  books  of  the 

New   Testament :     alyeio?,    alnog,    evXa^eia,    cpo/Bepo?,    ■)(a- 

paKT-npt  etc.;  13  are  post-classical  and  occur  in  the 
Septuagint  but  not  in  the  New  Testament :  dyvornua, 

XeiTOvpyiKog,    QTravyacrfxa,     TrpoToroKia,     etc.        Compound 

words  abound  in  this  epistle,  and  where  St  Paul 
makes  use  of  a  simple  word  this  epistle  makes  use  of 
one  that  is  compound.  Thus :  fiia-OaTroSocria  (ii.  2)  and 
fxiarOog  (1  Cor.  iii.  8),  v  a-wrekeia  rov  aiwvo?  (ix.  26)  and  to 
TeAo?  Twv  aiwvwv  (1  Cor.  X.  11),  a-vveTrifiapTvpeiv  (ii.  4)  and 
ixaprvpelv  (Gal.  V.  3),  ev  Se^ia  rod  dpovov  r^?  /jLeyaXoavvtjg 
(viii.    1)    and    ev  Se^ta   rod  Oeov  (Col.  iii.  1),   dvaXoyl^ea-Om 

(xii.  3)  and  Xoyi^ea-Oai   (Rom.   iii.   28).     A  complete 


316 


HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 


account  of  these  words  is  given  in  Westcott's  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  p.  14. 

Now  let  us  compare  the  vocabulary  of  this  epistle 
with  that  of  the  other  pauline  epistles.  There  are 
292  words  here  that  are  not  found  in  the  other 
epistles,  of  these  162  are  compounds,  the  130  re- 
maining are  words  in  common  use  that  St  Paul 
would  have  employed  had  they  belonged  to  his 
vocabulary. 

The  particles  that  have  so  much  to  do  with  the 
character  of  a  style  are  not  used  in  the  same  way  in 
St  Paul  and  in  this  epistle.  The  following  table  will 
show  clearly  how  conjunctions,  prepositions  and  ad- 
verbs are  used  in  the  pauline  epistles  and  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews : 


St  Paul 

Epistle  to  Hebrews 

Times 

Times 

3/ 

€L   Tip 

50 

Not  once 

€IT€ 

63 

a 

€1   TTft)? 

3 

» 

TTOre 

19 

»» 

ei  oe  Km 

4 

>» 

enrep 

5 

»» 

e/CTO?  ei  fi^ 

3 

» 

eiye 

5 

»» 

ixri  7rft)9 

12 

»» 

fxriKeri 

10 

»» 

fiev  ovv  ye 

3 

» 

eav 

88 

2 

€1  fxrj 

28 

1 

9                 \ 

ei  Kac 

16 

1 

€1  ov 

16 

1 

orav 

23 

1 

er 

ore 

20 

2 

cocrre 

39 

1 

OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         317 


St  Paul 

Epistle  to  Hebrews 

Times 

29 

Times 

2 

TTW? 

40 

1 

bOev 

Not  once 

6 

eavirep 

»» 

3 

KaU     0(TOV 

>> 

3 

KatTOl 

»> 

1 

1) 

evra 

5 

1 

apa 

27 

2 

TTCti/Tore 

27 

1 

eVet 

10 

9 

The  author  of  this  epistle  is  fond  of  the  prepositions 

aTTO,  Kiara,  jmera,  whereas  St  Paul  prefers  Sid,  e/c,  (Tuu,  virep, 

irepi,  irapd,  viro,  which  are  unkuown  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.     As  rhetorical  formulas  St  Paul  is  fond 

of:   Ti   ovv,   Ti    yap,  aX\     €p€c   Ti?,   fjLri   yivoLTO,   apa   ovv,   ovk 

o'lSare ;  whereas  this  writer  prefers  w?  eVo?  eiTrelv,  els  ro 
Sir]veK€9,  KaO'  ocrov  which  St  Paul  never  makes  use  of. 

Verbs  and  cases  are  also  used  differently  by  the 
two  writers.  The  verb  KaOl^co  is  transitive  (Eph.  i.  20) 
and  intransitive  (Heb.  i.  3)  in  the  same  context, 
Koivwvecv  governs  the  genitive  (Heb.  ii.  14)  and  the 
dative  (Rom.  xii.  13,  xv.  27;  Gal.  vi.  6,  etc.),  Kparelv 
governs  the  genitive  (Heb.  iv.  14)  and  the  accusative 
(Col.  ii.  19),  euayyeXl'C^oiuLai  is  always  in  the  middle  voice 
in  St  Paul  and  twice  in  the  passive  voice  in  this  epistle 
(iv.  2,  6).  The  optative  occurs  32  times  in  St  Paul, 
and  only  once  in  this  epistle,  which  is  astonishing 
considering  how  idiomatic  the  Greek  is. 

The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  expressions  that 
are  quite  peculiar  to  it :  Siacpepwrepov  ovofxa  KKripovofxelv, 
eivai  €19  irarepa,  ap-^r/v  Xa/uLJSaveiv  XaXei(r6ai,  Trpocrep'^^ecrOai  dpov<a 
■yapiTO<s,     Ke-^wpia-fxevoi     airo    toov    afxaproXoov.       The     WOrd 


318  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

KpeiTTcav  in  this  epistle  stands  11  times  for  the  most 
excellent  and  only  once  in  St  Paul  (1  Cor.  xii.  31)  and 
there  the  best  MSS.  have  ixei^wv.  This  epistle  has 
Trpoarep-^ea-Oai  rw  Qew  5  times,  St  Paul  has  it  only  once 
(1  Tim.  vi.  3)  and  the  text  is  doubtful.  This  epistle 
has  Oeog  ^Mv  (iii.  12)  ^wv  6  \6y09  (iv.  12)  6  times,  and 
St  Paul  has  it  not  once.  This  epistle  has  reXeiow 
9  times  in  the  sense  of  making  perfect,  and  St  Paul 
has  it  once  (Philip,  iii.  12)  in  the  sense  of  being  perfect. 
The  words  lepeu<i  and  ap-)(j.epeu<i  occur  respectively  14 
and  17  times  in  this  epistle  and  not  once  in  St  Paul. 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  in  St  Paul  words  and 
expressions  that  are  never  found  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  :  evayyeXLov  in  the  sense  of  revelation  of  God 
by  Christ  69  times,  KaTepya(piJ.aL  21  times,  /ut-va-rrjpiov  21 
times,  7r\r]p6co  23  times,  oiKoSoimea)  8  times,  SiKaiow  26 
times,  (ppoveco  (ppovij/ixa  ...  31  times  in  St  Paul  and 
never  in  this  epistle.  The  group  of  the  words  ayaTrdw, 
ay d-TTt],  ayairrjTo?  135  times  in  St  Paul,  twice  in  this 
epistle,  and  only  in  quotations ;  o.\t]Oeia  and  cognate 
words  55  times  in  St  Paul,  twice  in  this  epistle,  Kavyrjixa, 
etc.,  58  times  in  St  Paul,  once  in  this  epistle  and  then 
it  is  used  of  Christ. 

Certain  words  have  a  different  meaning  in  the  two 

places  :   wo?   tov   Oeov,   KXtjpovofxo?,   VTTOcTTaG-L^,   Tapi^,    epyov, 

Tr/cTTff.  St  Paul  calls  Our  Lord :  Jesus  Chi^ist,  Christ 
Jesus,  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  once  in  thirty  times  simply 
Jesus ;  but  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says  Jesus  9 
times  out  of  13,  3  times  Jesus  Christ,  and  once  Jesus 
Our  Lord. 

St  Paul's  epithets   for  Our  Lord  are :  irpwroTOKO's, 

TrpcoTOTOKO?  Ttjg  /cTfcrecof,  7rpwT09  €K  veKpwv,  Seurepo?  avOpooiro^, 
IU€<nT>]9   Oeov  Kai   avBpunro)v,  Ke(poXri   Tracrt]^   o.p-^fj^  Kal  e^ovcriag, 

whereas  in  this  epistle  the  epithets  are :  xp^^'^^^  ^^'o? 

exi  TOV  oIkov,  dp-^iepevs,  ap^iepevs  t%  ofxoXoylas,  airocrroXoSf 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 


319 


fi€(TiTt]9  dta0)7/c/?9,  ap)(>]yo?  (Toorripias,  apy^tjyo^  Tr/crTecD?,  K\r]pov6iJ.o? 
TravToov,  airavyacr/JLa  co^rj^  Kai  "^apaKTrjp  tj??  viroo'Tacrecos  avTov. 

There  are  however  some  expressions  that  are  found 
in  the  epistles  of  St  Paul  and  in  this  epistle  to 
the   Hebrews   and    nowhere   else :   7   words   ayioTti^y 

acbiXapyvpo?,  eTrKTuvaywyr'],  KaOoocnrep,  vcKpoo),  TrXtjpocjiopia, 
(TvyK\ripov6iJ.o^  occur  first  in  both  places.  The  epithet 
veveKpcojuevo?  is  applied  to  Abraham  both  in  Rom.  iv.  19 
and  Heb.  xi.  12 ;  Karapyew  has  the  same  meaning  in 
Heb.  ii.  14  and  Rom.  iii.  31  ;  2  Tim.  i.  10.  The 
pronoun  rtVe?  means  a  multitude  in  1  Cor.  x.  7,  10 
and  in  Heb.  iii.  16.  We  find  7re pia-a-orepco?  10  times  in 
Paul  and  twice  in  Hebrews,  vwi  18  times  in  Paul  and 
twice  in  Hebrews,  Kadairep  11  times  in  Paul  and  once 
in  Hebrews ;  and  these  words  never  occur  elsewhere 
in  the  New  Testament. 

Holtzman  gives  a  great  number  of  words,  expres- 
sions and  ideas  that  are  common  to  the  pauline 
epistles  and  to  this  epistle : 


Heb.  ii.  10 

= 

Rom. 

xi.  36 

„     iii.  6 

= 

»> 

V.  12 

„      vi.  12 

= 

»j 

iv.  13,  20 

„      X.  38 

= 

»> 

i.  7 

„      xi.  26  \ 
„      xiii.  13j 

= 

>> 

XV.  3 

„      xii.  14 

= 

xii.  18 
xiv.  19 

„     xiii.  1 

= 

jj 

xii.  10 

„      xiii.  2 

= 

»> 

xii.  13 

„      xiii.  9 

= 

»> 

xiv. 

„     ii.  4 

= 

iCor 

xii.  4,  7-11 

„     ii.  8 

= 

>> 

XV.  27 

„     ii.  10 

= 

>? 

viii.  6 

„     ii.  14 

= 

»> 

XV.  26 

320  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 


Heb. 

hi.  7-19 

>> 

xii.  18-25 

» 

xii.  4 

»» 

V.  12 

>> 

xi.  1 

5» 

V.  14 

Cor 

.  X. 

1-11 

fix. 

24 

>» 

u. 

13 

»> 

iii. 

2 

?> 

XV 

.  19 

5» 

ii. 

6 

These  similarities  by  no  means  prove  unity  of 
authorship,  or  that  one  writer  copied  from  the  other ; 
the  problem  is  much  more  complicated  than  that, 
considering  the  divergencies  mentioned  above.  What 
they  do  prove  is  that  the  writer  of  Hebrews  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  writings  of  St  Paul.  And  we 
may  well  believe  that  he  was  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle 
and  admitted  to  intimacy  with  him. 

Style  of  the  epistle. — The  author  was  undoubtedly 
skilled  in  writing  and  in  the  Greek  language.  Blass 
(Gram,  des  Neut.  Griech.  p.  247),  a  very  competent 
critic,  after  analysing  the  first  four  verses  of  the  first 
chapter  and  showing  that  the  rules  of  Greek  rhetoric 
are  observed  in  them,  goes  on  to  say :  "  The  remainder 
of  this  epistle  is  composed  in  quite  as  flowing  a  style, 
and  is  quite  as  good  rhetorically ;  the  whole  work, 
especially  as  regards  the  composition  of  words  and 
sentences,  must  be  held  to  be  a  piece  of  artistic  prose. 
Paul  on  the  contrary  never  takes  the  trouble  that  is 
indispensable  for  a  polished  style  of  writing,  and  in 
spite  of  all  his  eloquence  we  never  find  in  him  an 
artistically  constructed  sentence."  "The  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  the  only  piece  of  writing  in  the  New 
Testament  that  in  the  structure  of  the  sentences  or 
in  style  shows  the  care  and  skill  of  a  practised  writer, 
it  is  the  only  one  in  which  there  is  no  hiatus  such  as 
good  classical  prose  does  not  tolerate." 

The  rhythm  is  so  well  observed  that  Blass  has  been 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         321 

able  to  scan  the  whole  epistle  and  to  find  in  it  the 
various  forms  of  Greek  verse.  The  order  of  the 
words,  the  breaks  and  the  parentheses  are  well 
managed.  The  sentences  are  constructed  with 
regularity,  they  are  balanced,  the  protasis  and 
apodosis  are  well  marked,  and  the  iJ.ev  and  ^e  are  never 
omitted.  Many  parts  are  of  distinguished  beauty : 
i.  14;  ii.  2-4,  14-18;  vi.  1,  2;  vii.  20-28;  ix.  23-28; 
xii.  18-24,  and  especially  the  splendid  chapter  (xi.) 
on  Faith. 

Now,  if  we  compare  the  style  of  this  epistle  with 

St   Paul's   we   find   many   marked    differences.     As 

Bovon  (Theol.  du  N.  T.  ii.  p.  391)  says:  "If  Paul 

is   an   incomparable   dialectician,  the   writer  of  the 

epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  the  qualities  of  an  orator, 

he  has  depth  and  wealth,  he  likes  to  write  well,  and 

is  never  negligent."     His  plan  is  clearly  drawn,  every 

part  is  developed  with   regularity  and   is   carefully 

directed  towards  the   main  purpose,  the  arguments 

all  flow  logically  one  from  the  other.     The  eloquence 

is  calm  and  tranquil,  it  differs  altogether  from  Paul's 

fiery  and  passionate  eloquence ;  it  is  rhetorical  and 

not  polemical.     The  anacoluthons  and  the  unfinished 

sentences  that  one  sees  on  every  page  in  St  Paul  are 

almost  altogether  absent  here.     The  parentheses  that 

produce  so  many  incomplete  periods  in  St  Paul  are 

managed  with  dexterity  by  this  writer,  and  though 

sometimes  they  are  both  long  and  repeated,  still  the 

construction  is  never  spoiled  by  them — e.g.  vii.  20-22, 

V.   7-10,  vii.    1,  2  and  especially  xii.  18-24.     Proofs 

are  not  so  varied  as  in   St  Paul,  the  argument  is 

almost  wholly  Scriptural,  whereas   St   Paul   makes 

use  of  metaphysical,  psychological  and  moral  proofs, 

he   makes   texts   of    Scripture   serve    principally   to 

complete  the  demonstration.     We  shall  see  farther 


822  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

on  how  the  two  writers  differ  in  their  manner  of 
bringing  Scriptural  quotations. 

In  this  epistle,  moral  exhortation  is  intimately 
connected  with  dogmatic  teaching  (iii.  12-iv.  16, 
V.  11-vi.  12) ;  whereas  St  Paul  treats  of  dogma  first 
and  afterwards  of  morals.  There  are  no  sudden  and 
abrupt  changes  of  subject  here  such  as  occur  frequently 
in  St  Paul,  the  transitions  are  here  skilfully  brought 
about,  e.g.  {i.  1-5)  the  transition  from  the  preamble  to 
the  subject-matter,  (iv.  14-v.  1)  the  return  to  the 
subject  after  a  digression  on  morals,  or  (ix.  9-12)  the 
transition  from  the  sanctuary  to  the  sacrifices. 

Nevertheless  there  are  instances  where  the  style  of 
the  two  writers  is  analogous :  the  word  of  God  is  a 
sword  (Eph.  vi.  17  and  Heb.  iv.  12)  the  imperfect  to 
be  fed  with  milk  and  grown  men  with  solid  food 
(1  Cor.  iii.  1  ;  Heb.  v.  13).  Both  writers  take  their 
comparisons  from  warfare  (1  Cor.  ix.  24 ;  Col.  ii.  1 ; 
Phil.  i.  30 ;  Heb.  xii.  1,  4,  12,  13 ;  iv.  i,  v.  10),  from 
building  (1  Cor.  iii.  10;  Heb.  vi.  1),  from  agri- 
culture (1  Cor.  iii.  6-8  ;  Heb.  vi.  7,  8). 

Quotations  from  the  Old  Testament. — There  are  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  29  literal  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament  and  47  reminiscences  of  it.  The 
quotations  are  all  anonymous  whereas  St  Paul  often 
mentions  the  author :  Moses  saith  (Rom.  x.  19),  David 
saith  (Rom.  iv.  6).  Our  epistle  represents  God  as 
speaking :  "  God  who  in  former  times  spoke  to  our 
fathers  "  (i.  1  of.  i.  5,  7  ;  v.  5),  once  are  words  attributed 
to  the  Son  (ii.  12,  13),  once  to  Christ  (x.  5),  twice  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  (iii.  7,  x.  15).  Some  words  are  attri- 
buted to  God  that  are  not  His  directly  since  the 
author  speaks  in  his  own  name  and  of  God  in  the 
third  person  (iv.  4-8,  x.  30,  ii.  13).  St  Paul  attributes 
to  God  only  words  that  really  are  His  (Rom.  ix.  15- 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         323 

25  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  2).  Introductory  formulas  are  usually 
general  in  St  Paul :  as  it  is  written^  the  Scripture  saith^ 
the  Law  said,  and  the  most  ordinary  formula :  it  is 
written  occurs  31  times  in  St  Paul,  but  only  once  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  Septuagint  is  quoted  here  even  when  it  does 
not  agree  with  the  Hebrew  (iv.  4,  x.  3-10,  iii.  7,  i.  10, 
xii.  5,  viii.  8,  x.  37,  xii.  27,  vi.  13,  ix.  20,  x.  20).  Three 
free  quotations  represent  exactly  neither  the  Hebrew 
nor  the  Septuagint  (xii.  20,  xiii.  5,  i.  6).  One  would 
say  therefore  that  the  writer  knew  no  Hebrew,  and 
that  for  him  the  Septuagint  was  the  sacred  and 
authoritative  text.  St  Paul  also  usually  quotes  the 
Septuagint,  and  he  quotes  it  with  some  freedom  and 
sometimes  against  the  Hebrew,  yet  at  other  times  he 
is  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  and  corrects  the  Septuagint 
by  the  original  text  (Rom.  ix.  9,  x.  14 ;  1  Cor.  iii.  19). 

Historical  circumstances. — These  are  few  and  in- 
definite. But  let  us  see  whether  they  are  true  of 
St  Paul.  The  writer  speaks  very  distinctly  of  two 
preachings  of  the  faith  :  one  by  the  Lord  which  neither 
he  nor  his  readers  heard,  the  other  one  by  the  Apostles 
and  this  both  he  and  his  readers  have  heard  (ii.  3). 
Now  St  Paul  over  and  over  again  maintains  that  he 
had  a  direct  revelation  from  Christ  and  that  he  learned 
nothing  whatever  from  the  Apostles  (Gal.  ii.  6).  It 
would  be  astonishing  if  he  wrote  to  the  Jews  of 
Jerusalem  without  asserting  this  claim  more  than 
ever.  For  if  this  writer  had  been  able  to  say,  as  St 
Paul  does  say  in  more  than  one  place,  that  he  had 
heard  from  the  Lord  that  the  old  Law  was  abrogated, 
he  would  have  had  an  unanswerable  argument. 

The  writer  never  represents  himself  to  be  an  apostle, 
as  St  Paul  always  does,  he  represents  himself  as  a 
brother  (xiii.  22).     And  evidently  the  form  is  not  the 


324  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

form  of  a  pauline  epistle :  there  is  no  name,  or  address, 
or  salutation  by  name. 

Some  think  x.  34  to  be  an  allusion  to  St  Paul's 
captivity:  "You  showed  compassion  for  my  chains." 
But  in  spite  of  some  good  MSS.  the  true  reading  is : 
"  You  have  shown  compassion  for  prisoners  "  Sea-iaioi^ 

not  Sea-jULOi^. 

Doctrine  of  the  epistle. — We  do  not  mean  to  go 
through  the  whole  of  the  theology  of  this  epistle,  we 
intend  only  to  compare  it  with  pauline  theology,  in 
order  to  see  how  they  agree  and  how  they  differ. 

The  point  of  view  is  different,  and  that  of  course 
produces  many  other  differences.  For  St  Paul  looks 
upon  the  Law  as  a  rule  of  life  given  by  God  for  the 
purpose  of  causing  justification,  only  that  our  carnal 
nature  prevented  this  good  result  (Rom.  viii.  3). 
This  epistle  looks  upon  the  Law  as  a  body  of  ritual 
and  moral  precepts  intended  to  bring  about  union 
between  God  and  man,  it  was  the  sign  of  a  pact 
between  Jehovah  and  His  people,  and  has  been 
abrogated  "for  its  powerlessness  and  uselessness 
because  the  law  brought  nothing  to  perfection 
(vii.  18,  19).  So  that  in  the  former  case,  man  was 
in  fault ;  in  the  latter,  the  Law  is  at  fault. 

Hence  St  Paul  goes  on  to  prove  that  the  Law  was 
abrogated  because  it  had  finished  its  work  which  was 
to  show  that  man  needed  grace  and  without  it  could 
not  serve  God.  This  epistle  goes  on  to  show  how 
much  greater  and  more  efficacious  the  New  Testament 
is  than  the  Old  Testament  in  its  sacrifice  and  its 
Mediator.  In  a  word,  St  Paul's  view  is  that  the  Old 
Testament  was  a  preparation  for  the  Gospel ;  and 
this  epistle's  view  is  that  it  was  a  figure  or  a  shadow 
of  the  future  reality. 

These  two  points  of  view  are  different  but  not  in- 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         325 

consistent.  In  fact  they  coincide  in  many  ways. 
Thus :  the  Son  is  sent  in  the  last  times  (Heb.  i.  1),  in 
in  the  fulness  of  time  (Gal.  iv.  4),  the  Law  is  power- 
less and  useless  (Heb.  vii.  18  =  Gal.  iv.  9),  the  works 
of  the  Law  are  the  shadow  of  things  to  come  (Heb. 
X.  1 ;  Col,  ii.  17),  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  is  mentioned 
(Heb.  xii.  22)  and  (Gal.  iv.  26)  Abraham's  faith  is 
praised  (Gal.  iii.  6  and  Heb.  xi.  9-18). 

When  we  pass  from  the  consideration  of  the  point 
of  view  to  the  consideration  of  particular  dogmas,  we 
find  the  same  kind  of  differences  and  also  the  same 
kind  of  resemblances.  Christ  is  in  Heb.  i.  2  "  the  heir 
of  all  through  whom  He  made  the  ages,"  and  in  Col. 
i.  16  "  in  Him  all  things  were  made  "  ;  in  Heb.  i.  3  He 
is  "  the  splendour  of  the  glory  and  the  figure  of  the 
substance,"  in  2  Cor.  iv.  4  and  Col.  i.  15  "the  image 
of  God"  (Philip,  ii.  16)  "in  the  form  of  God";  in 
Heb.  i.  9  "  first-begotten  "  (Col.  i.  15)  "  first-begotten 
of  all  creation  "  {cf.  Rom.  viii.  29).  Christ  participated 
in  flesh  and  blood  in  order  to  destroy  the  power  of 
him  who  has  empire  over  death  (Heb.  ii.  14  and  Rom. 
viii.  2,  3).  Christ  died  once  (Heb.  vii.  27),  He  dies  no 
more  (Rom.  vi.  9).  He  sits  at  God's  right  hand  (Heb. 
i.  3  ;  Eph.  i.  20),  He  lives  to  intercede  (Heb.  vii.  25 ; 
Rom.  viii.  34). 

We  must  notice  that  for  St  Paul  the  central  point  of 
doctrine  is  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  but  in  this 
epistle  the  central  point  is  that  He  sits  in  heaven  in 
glory  as  High  Priest.  For  St  Paul,  Christ  lives  in 
Christians  (Gal.  ii.  20  ;  Rom.  viii.  1  ;  Eph  i.  3),  He  is 
the  head  and  they  are  the  members,  but  in  this  epistle 
He  officiates  as  the  High  Priest  of  Christians  if  they 
lift  up  their  hearts  to  Him  by  faith.  But  of  course 
these  two  ways  of  looking  at  the  dogma  are  not 
inconsistent. 


326  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

As  to  Christ's  having  died  for  our  sins,  that 
doctrine  is  common  to  the  pauline  epistles  and  to 
this  one  to  the  Hebrews.  But  there  is  a  difference 
as  to  how  His  death  caused  our  Redemption  :  St  Paul 
teaches  the  substitution  of  Christ  for  us,  satisfactio 
vicaiia  (Gal.  iii.  13 ;  Rom.  viii.  3)  and  especially 
2  Cor  V.  21,  whereas  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  supersedes  the  sacrifices  of  the 
Old  Law,  the  great  difference  being  in  the  value  of 
the  victim,  but  there  was  no  substitution  in  those 
sacrifices.  The  sinner  expiated  his  sin  by  destroying 
something  of  value,  but  the  thing  destroyed  was  not 
a  substitute  for  the  sinner.  And  so  in  this  epistle 
Christ  offered  to  God  the  most  precious  thing  that 
He  possessed,  viz.  His  own  life,  to  obtain  remission  of 
sins,  and  there  is  expiation  in  the  destruction  of  the 
person  offered,  but  there  is  not  strictly  speaking  a 
substitution  of  one  person  for  another.  It  is  another 
point  of  view,  though  it  is  not  in  disagreement  with 
that  of  the  pauline  epistles. 

The  occasional  cause  of  the  Incarnation  is  given 
differently  by  St  Paul  and  by  the  author  of  this 
epistle.  The  former  says  that  Christ  being  rich 
made  himself  poor  to  make  us  rich  (1  Cor.  viii.  9), 
He  was  in  the  form  of  God  (Philip,  ii.  6)  and  took 
the  form  of  a  servant ;  the  latter  says  that  Christ 
learned  to  sympathise  with  men  because  of  His 
Incarnation,  He  became  perfect  through  suffering  (ii. 
10,  V.  9).  Here  again  the  two  explanations  complete 
one  another  and  are  not  inconsistent. 

The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  gives  a  definition  of 
faith  (xi.  1).  According  to  this  definition  faith  is  an 
act  of  the  mind.  St  Paul  holds  that  view  also  in 
many  places  (Rom.  x.  9 ;  Gal.  iii.  25),  but  he  goes 
further  and  makes  faith  to  be  an  act  of  the  will  by 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         327 

which  the  believer  hves  in  Christ :  "  I  Hve,  yet  not  I, 
but  Christ  liveth  in  me  ...  I  Hve  in  the  faith  in 
the  Son  of  God"  (Gal.  ii.  20).  We  do  not  find  in 
Hebrews  that  mystical  union  with  Christ  by  faith. 
Yet  even  here  faith  belongs  to  the  heart  (x.  22) : 
"  Since  we  have  a  high  priest  ...  let  us  approach 
with  a  heart  sincere  in  the  fulness  of  faith."  There 
is  no  need  to  prove  that  in  both  writers  faith  justifies  : 
both  quote  from  Habacuc  "the  just  shall  live  by 
faith." 

Relations  between  Hebrews  and  contemporary 
writings. — We  have  said  that  the  author  of  this 
epistle,  if  it  was  not  St  Paul,  must  have  been  a 
disciple  of  his.  The  question  is  whether  this  disciple 
felt  the  influence  of  any  other  teacher.  And  it  is 
probable  that  being  both  a  Christian  and  a  Jew,  he 
studied  and  was  influenced  by  contemporary  Jewish 
and  Christian  writings. 

Of  all  the  New  Testament  writings  that  come  from 
Jews,  the  first  epistle  of  St  Peter  is  the  one  that  most 
closely  resembles  this  one  to  the  Hebrews,  both  in 
style  and  in  doctrine.  Let  us  take  first  the  verbal 
similarities : 


avTiruTTOS 

Heb. 

ix.  24 ; 

1  Peter  iii.  21 

irXavwixevoL 

V.  2 

ii.  25 

Pivoi  Kou  TrapeirlSriiuLoi 

xi.  13 

i.  1 

6  Xoyo^  Tov  Oeov  ^cov 

iv.  12 

i.  23 

KXtjoopofxeiv  Tt]v  evXoyiav 

xii.  17 

iii.  9 

eiprivrjv  oicoKeiv 

xii.  14 

iii.  1 

Oeo?  KarapTicrai 

xiii.  21 

V.  10 

at/xa  afxcojULOv 

ix.  14 

i.  19 : 

aijixaTi  wf  ajULvov  ajucojULOV. 

And  there  are  also  expressions  that  are  similar : 
Mention  of  the  body  of  Christ  (Heb.  x.  5,  10  and 


328  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

1  Peter  ii.  24).  Mention  of  the  offering  of  his  blood 
(Heb.  xii.  24  and  1  Peter  i.  2).  Jesus  our  pattern  in 
suffering  (Heb.  xii.  1-3  and  1  Peter  ii.  21-23).  Through 
Him  we  offer  sacrifice  of  praise  (Heb.  xiii.  15  and 
1  Peter  ii.  5). 

Doctrinal  similarities  are  very  distinct : 

Faith  is  confidence  in  God  who  rewards  (Heb.  xi. 
1-3 ;  1  Peter  i.  5-9).  Hope  is  recommended  (Heb. 
vi.  11,  18  ;  1  Peter  i.  3-13).  Christ  died  once  for  all 
(Heb.  vii.  27 ;  1  Peter  iii.  18). 

In  spite  of  all  these  similarities  we  do  not  think 
with  Velch  that  St  Peter  is  the  author  of  both  epistles, 
they  prove  only  that  both  the  writers  drew  something 
from  the  same  source,  viz.  from  a  more  or  less  stereo- 
typed Christian  tradition,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of 
literary  dependence. 

Palestinian  Judaism  is  scarcely  to  be  noticed  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  except  that  there  is  a 
mention  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  to  come  (xiii.  14) 
which  reminds  one  of  that  pre-existing  Jerusalem  in 
heaven  that  is  to  come  down  ready  built  to  the  earth 
(Apoc.  xxi.  2)  when  the  kingdom  of  God  comes. 
Alexandrian  Judaism  is  very  distinctly  to  be  seen,  on 
the  contrary,  according  to  certain  modern  critics. 

Carpzow  (in  ep.  ad  Heb.  1750)  was  the  first  to 
pass  this  judgment.  He  supported  it  by  quotations. 
And  others  coming  after  him  have  largely  borrowed 
from  him.  Holtzman  gives  the  following  account  of 
the  several  opinions :  Baur  sees  in  this  epistle  the 
product  of  Judeo-Christianity  mixed  with  paulinism 
and  spiritualised  by  Alexandrianism.  Riehm,  Reuss, 
Weiss  and  Beyschlag  connect  it  with  Alexandria  and 
say  that  it  represents  primitive  Christianity  in  the 
direction  towards  which  St  Stephen  tended,  a  via 
media  between  Peter  and  Paul ;  Schmiedel  develops 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  329 

this  view :  primitive  apostolic  teaching  was  the 
beginning,  next  came  Alexandrian  influence,  then 
pauline  doctrines  ;  Hilgenfeld  believes  in  Alexandrian 
influence,  but  insists  that  the  main  part  is  pauline ; 
Kendall  believes  in  pauline  and  Alexandrian  hellenism; 
Weizacker  prefers  to  say  that  it  is  Alexandrian 
Christianity  with  a  pauline  basis ;  Pfleiderer,  von 
Soden  and  Julicher  call  it  an  apology  for  Christianity 
in  which  pauline  thoughts  are  combined  with  Alex- 
andrian hellenism ;  Menegoz  considers  the  author 
to  be  a  disciple  of  Philo's  converted  to  Christianity 
but  not  connected  with  paulinism.  Milligan  considers 
that  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  stands 
by  himself  and  that  his  method  of  thought  cannot  be 
identified  with  that  of  any  other  thinker  of  the  period, 
he  shows  an  undoubted  independence  of  some  of  the 
forms  of  apostolic  Christianity,  a  breadth  of  view 
similar  to  St  Paul's,  and  his  manner  of  expressing 
himself  betrays  a  hellenic  or  Alexandrian  education. 
Holtzman  says  that  this  epistle  does  not  belong  to 
the  doctrinal  system  of  Paul,  but  that  it  contains 
some  definitely  pauline  points  of  view,  that  some 
results  of  pauline  thought  are  joined  in  it  with  the 
hypotheses  or  theories  of  Alexandrian  philosophy, 
especially  with  those  of  Philo,  and  have  produced  a 
sort  of  Christian  theology  of  which  we  have  a  primi- 
tive form  in  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colos- 
sians,  and  a  later  form  in  the  Johannine  writings,  and 
in  the  epistle  of  Barnabas. 

In  order  to  form  a  judgment  as  to  the  value  of 
these  opinions,  let  us  examine  how  this  epistle  is 
like  and  unlike  to  Philo's  writings.  We  select  that 
writer  because  he  is  the  best  contemporary  repre- 
sentative of  the  Judeo- Alexandrine  doctrines. 

Language. — Among  the  most  striking  similarities 


330  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

we   find    Heb.    iii.    1    tov   apyiepea    Trj?   o/uLoXoycag    ij/uloov  = 

Philo,  Somniis,  p.  598  (Frankfort  ed.  1691)  6  ixev  Stifxeya? 

ap-)(^iep€vg  rrjg  ofioXoylag  (Heb.  iii.  5)    Koi    Mtoo-^9   jui-ev   ttktto^ 

€v  6\o)  TU)  oiKw  avTov  =  Philo,  Lcgum  allegorise,  ii.   p. 

103,  Mwcr^?  jULapTvpovjui.€P09  ot  ecrrl  ttiotto^  ev  oKw  tw  oikw 
Heb.  V.  9  eyeveTO  iracrLv  alriog  crcoTripiaf  Philo,  de  ag7^icult. 
p.  201,  erepoi?  ahio?  crcorrjpia?  yevojuevo?,  etc.  ;   /merpiO'TraBeiv 

an  uncommon  word  found  in  Josephus  only  occurs 
in  Philo  and  in  this  epistle  in  the  same  meaning  ; 

efxaOev  acp'     wv  eTraOev     Heb.     V.     8  =  Philo,     Somniis     p. 

Heb.  KaTaTreraa-fxa  for  the  veil  of  the  temple  occurs 
1123;  vi.  19,  x.  20  and  in  Philo,  Fita  Mosis,  p. 
667. 

Besides  these  verbal  coincidences,  there  are  also 
similarities  of  style,  such  as  the  manner  of  introduc- 
ing comparisons,  transpositions  of  words,  frequency 
of  interjections  such  as :  W9  eVof  enrelv  (vii.  9)  or  ^irov 
(ii.  16)  which  occur  nowhere  in  the  Septuagint  or  in 
the  New  Testament. 

Similarity  of  thought. — The  first  thing  that  we 
must  notice  is  that  the  exegesis  of  this  epistle  agrees 
with  the  Alexandrian  exegesis  in  regarding  the 
persons  and  the  events  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
types  or  symbols  of  higher  truths.  And  Philo 
agrees  with  this  epistle  in  believing  Holy  Scripture 
to  be  literally  inspired. 

The  conception  of  the  visible  world  and  of  its 
relations  to  the  invisible  is  the  same  in  Hebrews 
and  in  Philo.  The  earthly  sanctuary  with  all  its 
accessories  of  actual  worship  is  the  antitype  or 
realisation  of  the  heavenly  model  (Heb.  ix.  24),  and 
in  Philo  the  world  of  ideas  is  the  original  and 
heavenly  type  of  which  the  phenomenal  world  is 
the  earthly  expression.  The  primitive  types  Trpdyfxara 
acrcojuiaTa  koi   yvfxvd  which  remind  one  of  Heb.   x.    1 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         331 

a-Kiav  Twv  /meWouTcov  ayaOcoi/  belong  to  heaven,  and  the 
antitypes  to  the  earth. 

The  Christology  is  Alexandrian  in  this  sense :  that 
it  bestows  upon  the  Son  of  God  the  attributes  that 
Philo  bestows  upon  the  Logos  whom  he  called  also 
the  Son  of  God.  You  can  find  in  Philo  the  examples 
of  faith  that  are  quoted  Heb.  xi.  Philo's  definition 
of  faith  is  very  similar  to  Heb.  xi.  1.  "  The  soul,"  he 
says,  "believes  not  because  it  sees  the  promises  realised, 
but  because  being  sustained  by  a  sure  hope  it  lives 
in  expectation,  and  without  having  any  doubt  it 
considers  itself  as  possessing  what  as  yet  is  not  in 
existence,  because  its  confidence  is  absolute  in  Him 
that  made  the  promise"  {de  migi^at.  Abrah.  i.  442). 
Philo  and  this  epistle  both  speak  of  the  necessity  of 
God's  swearing  by  Himself,  and  of  milk  and  solid 
food  for  the  imperfect  and  the  perfect. 

Tiifferences. — The  most  important  difference,  and 
the  one  that  excludes  the  possibility  of  our  calling 
the  author  of  Hebrews  a  disciple  of  Philo's  is  that 
he  never  mentions  the  Logos  or  identifies  Christ 
with  it.  He  does  mention  (iv.  12)  X070?  Qeov  which 
divides  soul  and  spirit,  but  that  is  the  voice  of  God 
as  the  context  shows.  In  Hebrews  the  Son  is  the 
Messiah  Jesus,  the  eternal  Son  incarnate,  whereas 
Philo  never  identified  the  Logos  with  the  JNIessiah 
or  spoke  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Messiah. 

Besides,  in  spite  of  the  identity  of  the  appellations  : 
first-born,  high  priest,  etc.,  which  Philo  gives  to  the 
Logos  and  Hebrews  to  the  Son  of  God,  there  is  this 
immense  difference  between  the  two :  that  in  Hebrews 
the  Son  of  God  is  a  concrete  being,  a  real  person, 
who  has  lived,  whereas  in  Philo  it  is  an  ideal  or  meta- 
physical being ;  in  the  one  case  there  is  life,  in  the 
other  abstraction.     The  same  remark  applies  to  the 


332  HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOKS 

comparison  with  Melchisedech.  And  the  allegorical 
conceptions  of  the  two  writers  are  not  as  closely 
allied  as  Holtzman  says.  In  Philo  the  legal  observ- 
ances are  the  antitypes  of  transcendental  ideas,  in 
Hebrews  the  Old  Testament  and  its  ceremonial  legisla- 
tion are  a  historical  reality  and  a  preparation  for  the 
New  Testament.  The  other  symbols,  the  tabernacle  and 
the  High  Priest  are  in  Hebrews  the  image  of  a  future 
reality,  in  Philo  they  are  realisations  of  abstract  ideas. 

Finally  we  may  say  that  the  two  authors  had  prob- 
ably the  same  scholastic  training,  they  drew  from  the 
same  sources,  and  had  been  under  the  same  discipline, 
but  they  wrote  independently.  The  similarities  be- 
tween them  are  purely  external,  and  the  essence  of 
their  teaching  is  far  from  being  identical. 

Conchision. — From  the  text  of  the  epistle,  from  its 
history  and  from  its  style  and  doctrine  we  gather : 
that  the  writer  was  a  Jew,  a  Christian,  of  the  sub- 
apostolic  age,  skilled  in  Holy  Writ,  a  disciple  of  St 
Paul  who  had  carefully  studied  the  pauline  epistles 
and  perhaps  had  been  instructed  by  the  Apostle  in 
person.  He  may  have  known  the  third  Gospel,  the 
Acts  and  the  first  epistle  of  St  Peter.  It  is  not  so 
clear  that  he  knew  Philo's  writings,  but  he  must  have 
been  under  the  same  influence  as  Philo,  and  his  educa- 
tion must  have  been  Alexandrian  rather  than  Palestin- 
ian. He  was  a  prominent  member  of  the  community 
to  which  he  wrote.  He  knew  Greek  so  well  that, 
though  he  was  a  Jew,  it  must  have  been  his  mother 
tongue.  He  was  a  skilful  writer,  and  was  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  art  of  Greek  rhetoric. 

Now  let  us  consider  the  claims  of  those  who  have 
been  put  forward  as  likely  to  be  the  real  author.  St 
Paul's  claims  are  supported  by  Pantenus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Origen  with  some  reservation,  the  Fathers 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         333 

of  the  Eastern  Church,  those  of  the  Latin  Church 
after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  the  Councils 
of  Laodicea,  Carthage  and  dependent  councils,  the 
Council  of  Trent,  in  our  days  the  majority  of  Catholic 
critics  and  some  Protestant  critics,  Meyer,  Paulus, 
Olshausen,  Biesenthal,  Wordsworth,  Stuart,  all  of 
these  or  nearly  all,  whether  Catholic  or  Protestant, 
make  the  same  reservation  as  Origen.  We  also  agree 
with  him :  "  The  thoughts  are  the  Apostle's,  but  the 
language  and  the  arrangement  of  the  thoughts  belong 
to  someone  who  remembered  the  apostolic  teaching 
and  commented  on  it.  God  alone  knows  the  truth  as 
to  who  wrote  the  epistle"  {Hist.  eccl.  vi.  25). 

The  claims  of  Barnabas  are  supported  very  distinctly 
by  Tertullian  who  perhaps  puts  into  words  the  primi- 
tive tradition  of  the  Latin  Church  at  all  events  in 
Africa,  the  Codex  Claromontanus,  Catholic  critics : 
Maier,  Fouard,  Protestant  critics :  Ritschl,Weise,  Keil, 
Zahn  and  Salmon.  The  general  conditions  above  men- 
tioned are  fulfilled  in  him  :  he  belonged  to  the  sub-apos- 
tolic age,  had  enjoyed  the  intimate  friendship  of  Paul 
and  had  often  heard  him  speak,  he  had  heard  the  oral 
tradition  which  was  the  result  of  the  earliest  preach- 
ing, probably  he  knew  the  writings  of  St  Luke  and  of 
St  Peter  or  their  sources,  being  a  Levite  he  knew  the 
rites  and  ceremonies,  being  a  native  of  Cyprus,  Greek 
was  his  mother  tongue,  he  may  have  been  educated 
in  Alexandria  considering  how  easy  communications 
were  with  Cyprus,  and  he  was  on  the  best  of  terms 
with  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  on  account  of  his 
generosity  (Acts  xi.  24).  There  exists,  it  is  true,  a 
letter  of  Barnabas  which,  whether  we  consider  the 
style  or  the  matter,  cannot  very  well  be  by  the  author 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Critics  agree  at  the 
present  time  that  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  was  written 


334  HISTORY   OF   THE   BOOKS 

in  130-140  by  an  Alexandrian  Christian.  On  the 
other  hand  it  has  been  remarked  that  Barnabas  can- 
not have  written  that  he  had  been  taught  by  those 
who  heard  the  Lord,  because  tradition  says  that  he 
was  one  of  the  seventy-two  disciples.  And  by  way  of 
answer  to  that  objection  it  is  said  that  he  merely 
wrote  in  that  way  in  order  to  identify  himself  rhetoric- 
ally with  his  readers. 

According  to  Eusebius  (Hist.  vi.  25)  Origen  says 
that  some  think  that  Luke  wrote  this  epistle,  Clement 
Alex,  thinks  that  Paul  wrote  it  in  Hebrew  and  Luke 
translated  it  into  Greek.  Some  Catholic  critics  :  Hug, 
Dollinger,  Zill,  Huyghe,  and  some  Protestants :  Stier, 
Ebrard,  Delitzsch  say  that  Luke  wrote  it  under  Paul's 
inspiration.  There  is  certainly  great  verbal  similarity 
between  St  Luke's  writings  and  this  epistle.  Clement 
Alex,  called  attention  to  this,  and  Westcott  (Ep.  to 
Heb.  p.  48)  gives  nineteen  words  oOev,  imeroxo?,  apx^iyos, 
o-xeSov,  etc.,  which  are  found  in  these  writings  only. 
But  we  say  that  if  St  Luke  wrote  this  epistle,  his 
share  must  have  been  purely  mechanical,  for  other- 
wise it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  Jewish  and 
Alexandrian  elements  that  are  in  it. 

According  to  Origen  (Eusebius,  Hist.  vi.  25)  some 
thought  that  Clement  of  Rome  was  the  author. 
Eusebius  admits  that  Clement  was  only  the  translator 
of  it,  and  that  is  what  Theodoret  (in  Heb.)  Euthalius 
(in  Heb.)  and  St  Jerome  (Vir.  ill.)  think.  Many 
Catholic  critics :  Reithmayr,  Valroger,  Bisping, 
Kaulen  and  Cornely  think  that  Clement  wrote  it 
under  Paul's  inspiration.  But  we  say  that  if  you  take 
away  from  Clement's  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  the 
passages  that  he  borrowed  from  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  it  would  be  evident  at  once  that  both  were 
not  composed  by  the  same  author,  because  there  is  in 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT         335 

Clement's  authentic  epistle  none  of  the  purity  of  style 
or  originality  of  thought  that  distinguish  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews. 

The  others  for  whom  this  authorship  has  been 
claimed  are :  Silas  by  Godet,  Apollos  by  Luther, 
Bleck,  Luneman,  de  Pressense,  Hilgenfeld,  Scholten, 
Reuss,  Pfleiderer,  and  among  Catholics,  Feilmoser 
and  Belser ;  some  Alexandrian  Jew  by  SeyfFart, 
Ewald,  Hausrath,  Lipsius,  von  Soden,  Holtzman, 
Menegoz,  Julicher,  Rendall,  Westcott,  Davidson ; 
Priscilla  and  Aquila,  probably  Priscilla  by  Harnack. 
This  variety  of  names  proves  how  difficult  it  is  to  say 
anything  for  certain  on  the  question.  In  reality  none 
of  these  claimants  possess  all  the  qualifications  that 
we  have  shown  to  be  required  in  the  author. 

But  whatever  opinion  anyone  may  hold  with 
regard  to  the  name  of  the  author,  he  must  consider 
the  epistle  to  be  canonical,  since  the  Councils  of 
Trent  and  the  Vatican  have  so  decreed. 


End  of  Vol.  I. 


THE  RIVERSIDE  PRESS  LIMITED,   EDINBURGH. 


Date  Due 

r « 

'3S5 

nP  2  9 

'S4 

1 

MY  13-; 

i4 

1 

^-   - 

^ 

1 

$) 

1 


